[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33558-33560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15618]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[A-475-816]


Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Crow or Stuart Schaag, Office of 
Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0116 or (202) 482-0192, respectively.

Final Determination

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that oil 
country tubular goods (OCTG) from Italy are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in 
section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) (19 U.S.C. 
1673d). The estimated margins are shown in the Suspension of 
Liquidation section of this notice.

Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, OCTG are hollow steel products 
of circular cross-section, including oil well casing, tubing, and drill 
pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), 
whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American 
Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished 
or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG 
products). This scope does not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe 
containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The OCTG subject to this 
investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 
7304.20.10.10, 7304.20.10.20, 7304.20.10.30, 7304.20.10.40, 
7304.20.10.50, 7304.20.10.60, 7304.20.10.80, 7304.20.20.10, 
7304.20.20.20, 7304.20.20.30, 7304.20.20.40, 7304.20.20.50, 
7304.20.20.60, 7304.20.20.80, 7304.20.30.10, 7304.20.30.20, 
7304.20.30.30, 7304.20.30.40, 7304.20.30.50, 7304.20.30.60, 
7304.20.30.80, 7304.20.40.10, 7304.20.40.20, 7304.20.40.30, 
7304.20.40.40, 7304.20.40.50, 7304.20.40.60, 7304.20.40.80, 
7304.20.50.15, 7304.20.50.30, 7304.20.50.45, 7304.20.50.60, 
7304.20.50.75, 7304.20.60.15, 7304.20.60.30, 7304.20.60.45, 
7304.20.60.60, 7304.20.60.75, 7304.20.70.00, 7304.20.80.30, 
7304.20.80.45, 7304.20.80.60, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.

    After the publication of the preliminary determination, we found 
that HTSUS item numbers 7304.20.10.00, 7304.20.20.00, 7304.20.30.00, 
7304.20.40.00, 7304.20.50.10, 7304.20.50.50, 7304.20.60.10, 
7304.20.60.50, and 7304.20.80.00 were no longer valid HTSUS item 
numbers. Accordingly, [[Page 33559]] these numbers have been deleted 
from the scope of this investigation.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 1994, through June 
30, 1994.

Case History

    Since our preliminary determination (60 FR 6515, February 2, 1995) 
the following events have occurred. On February 3, 1995, one of the 
respondents, Dalmine S.p.A. (Dalmine), requested a postponement of the 
final determination. This request was granted (60 FR 8632, February 15, 
1995), and the final was postponed by the Department until no later 
than June 19, 1995. On May 2, 1995, Dalmine submitted its case brief. 
On May 3, 1995, petitioner submitted its case brief and on May 10, 
1995, petitioner submitted its rebuttal.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Statute and to the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.
Best Information Available

    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677e(c)), 
we have determined that the use of best information available (BIA) is 
appropriate for all companies. Given that none of the three named 
companies responded fully to the Department's questionnaire, we find 
that no respondents have cooperated in this investigation.
    In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology, whereby the Department normally assigns lower 
margins to those respondents who cooperate in an investigation, and 
margins based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents who do 
not cooperate in an investigation. If the Department deems a respondent 
to be non-cooperative, that respondent's final margin for the relevant 
class or kind of merchandise is the higher of either (1) the highest 
margin in the petition, or (2) the highest calculated margin of any 
respondent (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (54 FR 18992, 19033, May 
3, 1989)). The Department's two-tier methodology for assigning BIA 
based on the degree of respondents' cooperation has been upheld by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (See Allied Signal 
Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see 
also Krupp Stahl, AG et al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 
1993).)
    In this investigation, the mandatory respondents have refused to 
cooperate by failing to respond, either entirely, or in large part, to 
the Department's questionnaire. Therefore, in accordance with our 
standard practice, the Department has assigned the highest margin in 
the petition to all respondents. The assigned BIA margin is the same 
margin that was assigned for the preliminary determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise from Italy to the 
United States were made at less than fair value, we compared United 
States price (USP) to foreign market value (FMV) as reported in the 
petition. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Oil 
Country Tubular Goods Pipe from Argentina, Austria, Italy, Japan, 
Korea, Mexico, and Spain (59 FR 37962, July 26, 1994).

Comment 1--Comments Regarding Dalmine S.p.A.

    Dalmine urges the Department to reverse its November 4, 1994, 
decision that Dalmine's home market is viable (see November 4, 1995, 
Memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford). As a basis 
for this reversal, Dalmine refers to arguments made in its November 14, 
1994, submission. In this submission, Dalmine challenged the legality 
of the Department's determination that Dalmine's home market is viable. 
Dalmine asserted that the Department's standing policy is not to use 
related party sales in its home market viability calculation. Dalmine 
also requests that the Department take into account its December 1994 
announcement concerning the Department's reconsideration of its policy 
regarding downstream related party sales (see December 27, 1994 Letter 
from Roland L. MacDonald, Director, Office of Agreements Compliance, to 
Dofasco Inc.). In the event that the Department reverses its November 4 
viability determination, Dalmine urges the Department to request, 
review, and verify Dalmine's third country sales data. Although such a 
task would extend past the Department's deadline for the final 
determination in this investigation, Dalmine argues that the 
Department's deadlines are hortatory and not mandatory and, therefore, 
the Department may take the time that is needed to receive and verify 
new responses.
    Petitioner argues that Dalmine's case brief merely refers to 
previous submissions that have already been rejected by the Department. 
Additionally, petitioner argues that downstream sales are not an issue 
in this investigation and, therefore, Dalmine's request that the 
Department reconsider its home market viability decision based on the 
Department's review of its policy regarding the reporting of downstream 
customers is irrelevant. Petitioner maintains that Dalmine's refusal to 
comply with the Department's explicit instructions to report home 
market sales can only be characterized as noncooperative and that the 
Department has no option but to use the highest margin alleged in the 
petition as BIA.

DOC Position

    We re-affirm our previous decision that Dalmine's home market is 
viable and that Dalmine's refusal to comply with the Department's 
request for home market sales information constitutes uncooperative 
behavior.
    In its November 4 determination, the Department decided that the 
nature of the relationship between Dalmine, its home market customers, 
and the Government of Italy, was not pertinent to the Department's home 
market viability analysis. The record contains no information that 
would cause the Department to change this decision. Additionally, the 
Department's announcement that it was reviewing its present policy 
regarding sales to downstream customers has no bearing on its policy to 
use sales to both related and unrelated parties in its viability 
analysis.

Comment 2

    In order to preserve the viability issue in the event that Dalmine 
decides to appeal the Department's determination, Dalmine urges the 
Department to clarify in this notice the extent of Dalmine's 
cooperation in this investigation and the reasons for Dalmine's 
decision not to report home market sales data. Specifically, Dalmine 
requests the Department to acknowledge that Dalmine informed the 
Department that its home market was not viable and that the Department 
rejected Dalmine's proposal because it considered Dalmine's home market 
to be viable. Additionally, Dalmine asks that the Department respond to 
the legal arguments addressed in Dalmine's November 14 submission and 
that the Department's analysis take into account the policy 
announcement that the [[Page 33560]] Department made on December 27, 
1994, regarding the Department's requirement to report downstream 
related party sales.
    Petitioner argues that there is no need for the Department to 
revisit its decision regarding the viability of Dalmine's home market.
DOC Position

    The information regarding the extent of Dalmine's participation in 
this investigation is already a matter of public record. In the event 
that Dalmine appeals the Department's actions, the Department's 
previous decision to request home market information, Dalmine's 
subsequent arguments concerning the Department's decision, and 
Dalmine's refusal to supply the Department with requested information 
are all on record in the official file in the Central Records Unit of 
the Department.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act (19 USC 
1673b(d)(1)), we directed the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of OCTG from Italy, as defined in the ``Scope of 
Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 2, 1995.
    Pursuant to the results of this final determination, we will 
instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or posting of a 
bond equal to the estimated final dumping margin, as shown below, for 
entries of OCTG from Italy that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption from the date of publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register. The suspension of liquidation will remain in 
effect until further notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average 
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalmine S.p.A...............................................       49.78
Acciaierie Tubificio Arvedi S.p.A...........................       49.78
General Sider Europa S.p.A..................................       49.78
All Others..................................................       49.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. The ITC will make its determination whether 
these imports materially injure, or threaten injury to, a U.S. industry 
within 45 days of the publication of this notice. If the ITC determines 
that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted as a result of 
the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or cancelled. However, 
if the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) in this investigation of their 
responsibility covering the return or destruction of proprietary 
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). 
Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(d)) and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4).


    Dated: June 18, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-15618 Filed 6-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P