[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24274-24283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11941]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-485-804]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Romania

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or John Beck, Office of 
Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4162 or (202) 482-3464, respectively.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(the Act) are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, 
the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay 
Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to the current 
regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in the 
Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Final Determination

    As explained in the memoranda from the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration dated November 22, 1995, and January 11, 1996, 
the Department of Commerce (the Department) has exercised its 
discretion to toll all deadlines for the duration of the partial 
shutdowns of the Federal Government from November 15 through November 
21, 1995, and December 16, 1995, through January 6, 1996. Thus, the 
deadline for the final determination in this investigation has been 
extended by 28 days, i.e., one day for each full or partial day the 
Department was closed. As such, the deadline for this final 
determination is no later than May 6, 1996.
    We determine that circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (pipe) from 
Romania is being sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Act. The estimated margins 
are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the preliminary determination of November 21, 1995 (60 FR 
61529, November 30, 1995), the following events have occurred:

[[Page 24275]]

    In February 23, 1996, the respondents, Tepro S.A. (Tepro) (the 
producer of the subject merchandise), Metagrimex S.A. (Metagrimex), 
Matalexportimport S.A. (Metalexportimport) and Metanef S.A. (Metanef) 
submitted additional publicly available published information (PAPI) 
pertaining to surrogate values. On March 1, 1996, the petitioners \1\ 
commented on the respondents' PAPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular 
Division--Armco, Inc., LTV Steel Tubular Products Company, Sharon 
Tube Company, Laclede Steel Company, Wheatland Tube Company and 
Century Tube Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 1996, we verified the questionnaire responses to Tepro, 
Metagrimex and Metalexportimport. The third exporter, Metanef, did not 
permit the Department to verify its questionnaire responses.
    The petitioners and respondents submitted case and rebuttal briefs 
on April 12 and 17, 1996, respectively. Additional comments were 
requested by the Department and submitted by the petitioners and 
respondents on April 19 and 23, 1996, respectively.

Scope of Investigation

    The following scope language reflects certain modifications from 
the notice of the preliminary determination. We clarified the paragraph 
beginning ``The scope specifically includes * * *'' for use and 
presumed use language.
    For purpose of this investigation, circular welded non-alloy steel 
pipes (standard pipes) are all pipes and tubes, of circular cross-
section, not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, 
regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or 
painted), end finish (plain end, bevelled end, threaded, or threaded 
and coupled), or industry specification (ASTM, proprietary, or other) 
used in standard or structural pipe applications.
    The scope specifically includes, but is not limited to, all pipe 
produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-120, ASTM A-135, ASTM A-795, and BS-
1387 specifications, regardless of use. It also includes any pipe 
multiple-stencilled or multiple-certified to one of the above-listed 
standard or structural pipe specifications and to any other 
specification, if used in a standard or structural pipe application. 
Pipe which meets the above physical parameters and which is produced to 
proprietary specifications, the API-5L, the API-5L X-42, or to any 
other non-listed specification is included within the scope of this 
investigation if used in a standard or structural pipe applicaion, 
regardless of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) category into which it was classified. If the pipe does not 
meet any of the above identified ASTM or BS specifications (i.e., ASTM 
A-53, ASTM A-120, ASTM A-135, ASTM A-795, and BS-1387) or is multiple-
Stencilled or multiple-certified to one of these specifications and to 
any other specification, although it is within the identified physical 
parameters described in the second paragraph of this section, our 
presumption is that it is not used in a standard pipe application.
    Standard pipe uses include the low-pressure conveyance of water, 
steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and 
heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, 
and other related uses. Standard pipe may carry liquids at elevated 
temperatures but may not be subject to the application of external 
heat. Standard pipe uses also include load-bearing applications in 
construction and residential and industrial fence systems. Standard 
pipe uses also include shells for the production of finished conduit 
and pipe used for the production of scaffolding.
    Specifically excluded from this investigation are mechanical 
tubing, tube and pipe hollows for redrawing, the finished electrical 
conduit if such products are not certified to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-120, 
ASTM A-135, ASTM A-795, and BS-1387 specifications and are not used in 
standard pipe applications. Additionally, pipe meeting the 
specifications for oil country tubular goods is not covered by the 
scope of this investigation, unless also certified to a listed standard 
pipe specification or used in a standard pipe application.
    The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under 
items 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 
7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90 of the HTSUS. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.
    Regarding implementation of the use provision of the scope of this 
investigation, and any order which may be issued in this investigation, 
we are well aware of the difficulty and burden associated with such 
certifications. Therefore, in order to maintain the effectiveness of 
any order that may be issued in light of actual substitution in the 
future (which the use criterion is meant to achieve), yet administer 
certification procedures in the least problematic manner, we have 
developed an approach which simplifies these procedures to the greatest 
extent possible.
    First, we will not require use certification until such time as 
petitioner or other interested parties provide the Department with a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that substitution is occurring. 
Second, we will require use certification only for the product(s) (or 
specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that substitution is 
occurring. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, 
the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that pipe 
produced to the API-5L specification is being used as standard pipe, we 
will require use certifications for imports of API-5L specification 
pipe. Third, normally we will require only the importer of record to 
certify to the use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves 
necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers 
who export such products to the United States to provide such 
certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 1994, through March 
31, 1995.

Facts Available

    Pursuant to section 776 of the Act, the Department shall use the 
facts otherwise available if necessary information is not available on 
the record, or if an interested party or any other person withholds 
requested information, fails to provide such information by the 
deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides such 
information but the information cannot be verified.
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The 
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on 
secondary information, including information drawn from the petition. 
In this case, Metanef refused the verification of its questionnaire 
responses. Therefore, since reliable information is not on the record, 
and Metanef has not acted to the best of its ability, the application 
of section 776(b) is warranted. As a result, we are basing adverse 
facts available for the Romania-wide rate, which covers Metanef, on the 
rate calculated for Metagrimex, which is

[[Page 24276]]

highest margin calculated and is higher than the rate contained in the 
petition.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because Metanef refused to have its questionnaire response 
verified, it is ineligible for consideration for a separate dumping 
margin. Accordingly, because Metanef is the only other exporter, the 
country-wide rate is being based on Metanef's rate (which is based 
on adverse facts available).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    As stated in our preliminary determination, Romania is a non-market 
economy (NME) country. To establish whether a firm is sufficiently 
independent from government control to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the Department analyzes each exporting entity under a test articulated 
in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 
from the People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) and 
amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, 
22586, May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under the separate rates 
criteria, the Department assigns separate cash deposit rates in 
nonmarket economy cases only if a respondent demonstrates the absence 
of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities.
    The Department typically considers three factors which support, 
though do not require, a finding of de jure absence of central control. 
These factors include: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; or 
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. The Department typically considers four factors in 
evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental 
control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set 
by or subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether 
the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide).

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The two cooperating exporters of the subject merchandise in this 
investigation, Metagrimex and Metalexportimport, have provided their 
business licenses issued by the Romanian Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry. These exporters have stated that these licenses do not 
require renewal, do not impose any limitations on or create any 
entitlements for their operations, and can only be revoked by the 
issuing authorities if the requirements of the license are not 
fulfilled. The exporters also provided copies of several trade laws 
which they claim provide for the elimination of the state monopoly in 
the economy and foreign trade. During the verification of Metagrimex 
and Metalexportimport, we examined these exporters' business licenses, 
as well as the relevant trade laws. These documents supported the 
absence of de jure control claimed by these two exporters.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    These two exporters also asserted absence of governmental control 
based on all the de facto criteria. Specifically, they stated that: (1) 
They establish their own export prices; (2) they negotiate contracts 
without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; and 
(3) there are no restrictions on the use of their export revenues and 
they make independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. During our verification of these two companies, we 
examined sales documentation, including correspondence and contracts 
with the customer, as well as bank accounts and profit allocation. 
These documents confirmed the accuracy of the above-referenced 
statements.
    Concerning the fourth criterion that the respondent in question has 
autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of management, both Metagrimex and Metalexportimport stated 
that they had this autonomy. During our verification of Metagrimex, we 
examined the membership of its Council of Administration, which selects 
the management and is similar to a board of directors. Our examination 
confirmed that this council was independent of the Romanian government 
or agencies thereof, and therefore, Metagrimex was able to make its own 
management personnel decisions.
    During our verification of Metalexportimport, we also examined the 
membership of its Council of Administration, which also selects the 
management and is similar to a board of directors. We confirmed that 
this council, which is made up of five members, only included one 
member appointed by the state ownership fund (SOF) and one member 
appointed by the private ownership fund (POF). The SOF and the POF were 
created by the Romanian government to help privatize Romanian 
companies. We thus confirmed that this council was independent of the 
Romanian government or agencies thereof, and therefore, 
Metalexportimport was able to make its own management personnel 
decisions.
    Consequently, we determine that the information provided by 
Metalexportimport and Metagrimex supports our finding that there is de 
jure and de facto absence of governmental control of export functions. 
Therefore, these two companies have met the criteria for the 
application of separate rates.
    Respondent Metanef provided information regarding separate rates in 
this investigation. However, because it refused verification, we could 
not verify its separate rate claim.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of pipe from Romania to the United 
States by Metagrimex and Metalexportimport were made at less than fair 
value, we compared Export Price (EP) to the Normal Value (NV), as 
specified in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.

Export Price

    For both exporters, we calculated EP in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation and because constructed export price under section 772(b) 
is not otherwise warranted on the basis of the facts of this 
investigation.
    For Metagrimex and Metalexportimport, we calculated EP based on 
packed, FOB Romania port prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States, as appropriate, based on the same methodologies 
described in the preliminary determination.

Normal Value

    As stated in our preliminary determination, when the Department is 
investigating imports from a NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs 
us to base NV on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. Therefore, we calculated NV based on factors of production 
reported by Tepro, the sole producer of the subject merchandise. We 
made the following adjustments to the factors reported by Tepro based 
on our findings at verification.

[[Page 24277]]

    First, we used corrected wall thicknesses in matching steel coil to 
its surrogate value (see comment #5 in the ``Interested Party 
Comments'' section of this notice). Second, we adjusted lacquer, 
electricity, and thread protector factors for corrections found at 
verification. Third, since Tepro was unable to adequately support its 
claimed labor figures for pipe produced on production line 220, we 
disregarded the amount reported and used, as facts available, the 
highest verified direct labor input for the size of pipe on another 
verified line closest to the sizes produced on line 220 (as discussed 
below, indirect labor is included in the value for overhead) (see 
comment #9 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this 
notice).

Valuation of Factors

    For the final determination, we have calculated NV using Colombian 
and Thai prices to value Tepro's factors of production. We have 
multiplied the reported factor quantities by these values. Where we had 
information for Columbia, we used it as our primary surrogate. We have 
used data from Columbia because Colombia is the closest country to 
Romania in terms of economic development that is also a significant 
producer of the subject merchandise. Where we had no information for 
Colombia, we used Thailand as our secondary surrogate since Thailand is 
within the same per-capita income band of countries as Romania and 
Colombia and it is also a significant producer of the subject 
merchandise (see Comment #1 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' 
section of this notice). All values were adjusted for inflation, where 
appropriate.
    To value hot rolled steel coil, the major material input, we again 
used the steel price list for sheet and coil sold to industrial users 
in Colombia published by Acerias Paz del Rio S.A., a Colombian producer 
of steel sheet and coil. To value saleable steel scrap, because we 
could find no Colombian PAPI, we used the percentage difference between 
steel coil and steel scrap from the 1994 Thai import statistics, 
contained in the Foreign Trade Statistics of Thailand, published by the 
Thai Customs Department (1994 Thai Import Statistics). For lacquer and 
marking paint, we used the basket category data for paints and 
varnishes for both of these factors reported in the 1994 Colombian 
import statistics, provided by the Instituto Colombiano de Comercia 
Exterior (1994 Colombian Import Statistics). For zinc, hydrochloric 
acid, zinc chloride and ammonium chloride, we used values in the 1994 
Colombian Import Statistics. For saleable zinc scrap, because we could 
find no Colombian PAPI, we used the values in the 1994 Thailand Import 
Statistics.
    To value unskilled and packing labor, we used the 1994 wage rate 
for the manufacturing sector published in the Economic Guide for 
Investors by the Colombian government. Since we cannot determine if the 
labor values in this case were for skilled or unskilled workers, we are 
following the method established in the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the PRC (61 FR 14057, 
March 29, 1996). In that investigation, we found no basis to assume the 
skill level of the surrogate value, nor did we have agreement among the 
parties regarding the skill level. Thus, we applied a single wage rate 
to all reported labor factors. Since we have the same situation here, 
we applied a single wage rate to unskilled and packing labor factors. 
Further, because this value was exclusive of benefits, we increased the 
amount reported to include benefits. As explained above, the value for 
overhead includes an amount for indirect labor. Thus, we did not value 
the factor for indirect labor.
    To value electricity, we used electricity rates for Colombian 
industrial users published quarterly by the Latin America Energy 
Organization (Organizacion Latinoamericana de Energia, or OLADE). For 
methane, because we were unable to find a Colombian value, we used the 
value of natural gas because, according to the petitioners, it has 
substantially the same end use as methane. We based the surrogate value 
for natural gas on 1992 Colombian prices shown in a 1993 OLADE 
publication.
    For the packing materials of cold rolled strip, PVC foil and thread 
protectors, because we could find no Colombian PAPI, we used the values 
in the 1994 Thailand Import Statistics.
    We were unable to locate Colombian PAPI for overhead, selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit. Therefore, we 
used the values from the Final Results of the 1992-93 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes from Thailand (61 FR 1328, January 19, 1996) (1992-93 
Administrative Review). The rate for overhead included an amount for 
indirect labor. Overhead was calculated as a factor of direct labor. 
SG&A expenses were calculated as a percentage of the sum of materials, 
labor and overhead.
    We were also unable to locate Colombian PAPI for rail freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling. Thus, for rail freight, we used the 
rate contained in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Romania (57 FR 42957, 
September 17, 1992) (Steel Pipe I). This information was obtained from 
The Investment Environment in Thailand for 1991. For foreign brokerage 
and handling, we used the rate contained in the public version of a 
questionnaire response submitted in the 1994 antidumping duty 
investigation of Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand (60 
FR 10552, February 27, 1995). We used the rate contained in the 1994 
investigation because this figure was more recent than the foreign 
brokerage and handling rate contained in Steel Pipe I, which was based 
on an earlier Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand 
investigation. For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the 
calculation of NV, see the May 3, 1996, memorandum from the Team to 
Gary Taverman, Acting Director, Office of Antidumping Investigations.

Romania-Wide Rate

    As in all NME cases, the Department implements a policy whereby 
there is a rebuttable presumption that all exporters or producers 
comprise a single exporter under common government control, the ``NME 
entity.'' The Department assigns a single NME rate to the NME entity, 
unless an exporter can demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. As 
stated previously, Metanef has not established entitlement to a 
separate rate because of its refusal to have its questionnaire response 
verified. Therefore, it becomes the Romania-wide rate (for a further 
discussion of the NME rate, see the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China (61 
FR 19026, April 30, 1996).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified all 
information submitted (except that of Metanef) used in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures, including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records and original 
source documents.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Selection of Surrogate Countries

    The petitioners state that any surrogate country used in this 
investigation should be a significant

[[Page 24278]]

producer of comparable merchandise. Since Colombia, Thailand and the 
United States are the only countries on the record which have been 
shown to be significant producers of the subject merchandise, the 
petitioners state that only surrogate data from these countries can be 
used in the final determination.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners. However, for the final 
determination, we have only used values from Colombia and Thailand 
because values were found for these two countries, making the use of 
U.S. values unnecessary.

Comment 2: Proposed Use of the Acerias Price List to Value Steel Coil

    The respondents argue that the Department should not use the price 
list of Acerias Paz del Rio, S.A. (Acerias) to value steel in the final 
determination. The petitioners argue that respondents' assertions on 
this matter have, for the part, been rejected by the Department in its 
preliminary determination and that the Department should continue to 
use the price list to value steel in the final determination. The 
arguments presented by both sides have been classified into five main 
areas: (1) Whether the prices on the price list were aberrational; (2) 
whether the price list represents actual prices; (3) whether the 
Department's use of this list in the preliminary determination was 
predictable and fair; (4) whether the problems of Acerias have an 
impact on its prices; and (5) whether the Department's past practice 
allows for the use of the price list.
    Regarding whether the price list was aberrational, the respondents 
argue that the Acerias prices are aberrational and conflict with the 
other values on the record and are, therefore, not reliable. The 
petitioners counter that the Acerias prices are not aberrational and 
fall squarely in the range of the prices: (1) Provided by the 
respondents when one increases these prices for the increase in world 
steel prices; and (2) from 12 countries provided by the petitioners.
    Both parties then argue about whether the price list represents 
actual prices. The respondents argue that the Acerias price list does 
not represent actual prices. They then contend the following. First, 
the Department relied upon a vague affidavit provided by the 
petitioners to establish steel prices in the preliminary determination. 
In contract, the affidavit, provided by respondents shows that the 
price list does not represents actual prices. Second, Colombia pipe 
producers use imported steel. Therefore, the price list has no 
probative value. Third the petitioners have previously argued that a 
price list submitted by the respondents was inconsequential since ``it 
is widely known that virtually all steel purchasers receive substantial 
discounts from price lists.''
    The petitioners counter that the Acerias price is publicly 
available published information which represents actual prices paid for 
steel coil in Colombia. The petitioners argue the following to support 
this contention. First, petitioners' affidavit was properly sworn and 
consularized and was not vague in any way. Second, the two affidavits 
submitted by the respondents to discredit the price list rely on broad 
generalizations and misdirection and are not proper affidavits. Third, 
the petitioner' previous statements regarding the applicability of 
steel price lists related to U.S. lists and therefore are of no 
relevance to the Acerias price list.
    Both parties then argue whether the Department's use of this list 
in this investigation was predictable and fair. The respondents assert 
that the use of this price list violates the Department's own precepts 
that NME cases be accurate, fair and predictable. To support their 
assertion, they argue the following. First, during the last four years, 
the Department has developed a PAPI hierarchy that prefers import 
statistics. Second, in this case, the Romanians could not have 
anticipated that Colombia would be selected as the surrogate country. 
However, even if they would have relied on Colombia import statistics 
or world import statistics to help them predict probable surrogate 
values and establish a price structure for the U.S. market, not a price 
list dated seven months after the POI. Third, even the Departments 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments (16 FR 
7308, February 27, 1996) states that prices observed in international 
markets may better serve the Department's goals of accuracy and 
fairness.
    The petitioners counter that the selection of Colombia as a 
surrogate country was very predictable. First, the Department's policy 
has never required that the surrogate be a major exporter in the 
production of comparable merchandise. Second, the fact that the 
surrogate countries for Romania have changed over time is attributable 
to economic changes in Romania. Third, there is no fixed policy 
preference for import statistics over all other sources in NME cases. 
Fourth, the Department has been willing to use world prices only where 
the surrogate value that would have been selected under the traditional 
method is aberrational, which is not the case here.
    Both parties then discussed whether the problems of Acerias have an 
impact on its prices. The respondents argue the following. First, 
Acerias is currently in bankruptcy and continues to suffer the effects 
of strikes which took place in 1994. The Department in a previous case 
refused to use the annual report of an Indian bearing producer for 
overhead because it too, was in bankruptcy (Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof from the Peoples Republic of China (Tapered Roller 
Bearings) (56 FR 67590, December 31, 1991)). Second, Acerias is not 
comparable to other world steel producers because it is not 
representative of modern steel companies.
    The petitioners counter that the Acerias price list is not 
unreliable. unrepresentative or distortive. To support their position, 
the petitioners argue the following. First, respondents have failed to 
demonstrate any connection between Acerias financial difficulties and 
the notion that this caused Acerias to charge higher prices for its 
products. If any connection between financial problems and prices has 
been established, the record shows that Acerias had to charge lower 
prices for its products than it normally would have. Second, 
respondents' claim that Acerias' production is based on old technology 
is inconsequential because it does not refer to whether the technology 
relates to the production of hot-rolled coil and does not mention the 
fact that Acerias has made improvements to its infrastructure in the 
preceding years.
    Finally, both parties discuss whether the Department's past 
practice allows for the use of the price list. The respondents contend 
that the Department's acceptance of an unverified price list 
contravenes the Department's policy on price lists. They argue that to 
use a price list, the Department requires that all sales be based on 
the price list, an accounting firm must certify that the company 
adheres to the price lists, and the price list must be contemporaneous, 
none of which is present here. The respondents then argue that the 
price list is not PAPI and should not be used.
    The petitioners counter that respondent's characterization of the 
Department's practice with respect to price lists is incorrect. The 
further state that the documentation provided by the respondents 
relates only to the use of price lists as substitute for sale-by-sale 
reporting of actual transaction prices.

[[Page 24279]]

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners, in part. We have used the Acerias 
price list to value steel coil but have not made an adjustment to this 
list for the price trend claimed by the petitioners (see also Comments 
#3 below). In this case we have used the Acerias price list because we 
feel that its is more appropriate to use actual prices of a producer of 
a material input in the primary surrogate country rather than import 
statistics. We believe that Acerias prices more closely represent 
prices a pipe producer in a comparable market economy country would pay 
for this input material. Furthermore, the use of the price list was 
found to be reasonable when analyzing the points (discussed below) 
raised by the interest parties. Therefore, it is our first choice for 
valuation purposes.
    Regarding the issue of whether the prices on the price list are 
aberrational, we have compared the Acerias prices to (1) Colombian 
import statistics provided by the respondents; (2) Thailand import 
statistics; \3\ and (3) Latin American export prices published in the 
Metal Bulletin. Where appropriate, prices were adjusted for inflation 
to make them POI prices. The results of this analysis showed that the 
prices on the Acerias price list were reasonably close in value to 
those comparators (for a complete discussion of this analysis, see the 
May 6, 1996, issues memorandum from the Team to Barbara R. Stafford, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Thai import statistics are used for comparison purposes 
because: (1) Thailand is within the same per-capita income band of 
countries as Romania and Columbia; (2) Thailand is a large producer 
of the subject merchandise; and (3) steel import statistics were 
available from Thailand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the issue of whether the price list represents actual 
prices, we feel confident that the prices on Acerias' list are actual 
prices. The affidavit provided by the petitioners states that the price 
list (1) Is publicly available to any person who requests it; and (2) 
contains actual prices charged by Acerias to industrial users in 
Colombia. While these industrial users receive discounts for unfinished 
edges, quantity purchases, and prompt payment, these discounts are 
clearly identified on the price list and have been deducted from the 
prices used in our calculations. Thus, we have utilized actual prices 
paid by Acerias' customers in our margin calculations.
    Regarding Tepro's affidavit, we believe that the price list 
describes adequately the type of steel. We agree with the petitioners 
that ``commercial quality'' adequately describes SAE 1010 grade or its 
equivalent which is used by pipe producers. Furthermore, it does not 
matter that Acerias may: (1) Not have sold the steel to Colombian pipe 
producers; (2) not have sold exclusively from the price list; or (3) 
have sold to large customers at discounts below those listed on the 
price list. None of these arguments explicitly disproves that Acerias 
sold steel coil using the prices on its price list to customers in 
Colombia. We have found no evidence that the prices in the price list 
are not actual prices; in contrast, we believe that petitioners' 
affidavit demonstrates that the list prices are, indeed, actual prices.
    Regarding the issue of whether the Department's use of the Acerias 
list was predictable and fair, we note that Colombia was used in this 
investigation due to its per-capita GNP similarity with Romania and the 
fact that it is a significant producer of the subject merchandise. 
While the surrogate countries have changed over time because of the 
economic changes of Romania and other countries, the Department has 
utilized the same criteria for selecting surrogate countries. The 
Department selects surrogate countries based on the per-capita GNP 
rankings of all countries listed in the World Development Report 
published by the World Bank. Therefore, we believe the selection of 
Colombia as the surrogate country in this investigation was both 
predictable and fair. Furthermore, we disagree with the respondents 
that the Department has developed a PAPI hierarchy in which import 
statistics are preferred to surrogate values from a producer of the 
material input in the primary surrogate country. The Department does 
not have a hierarchy where import statistics are used. As explained 
above, in this case, publicly available surrogate values from a 
producer of the material input in the primary surrogate country have 
been found to be preferable over import statistics. Finally, the 
Department's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public 
Comments stated that international markets should only be used when 
data from a primary and/or secondary surrogate countries were not found 
to be appropriate, and not as the first choice.
    Regarding the issue of whether the problems of Acerias have an 
impact on its prices, we do not believe that the respondents have 
adequately demonstrated any relationship between Acerias' financial 
difficulties and the steel coil prices charged by Acerias. There is 
nothing on the record which states that Acerias charged its customers 
higher prices than it normally would have due to its financial 
difficulties. In fact, one could argue that a cause of Acerias' 
negative financial state is a consequence of the lower than normal 
prices it charged its domestic customers. Furthermore, in Tapered 
Roller Bearings, the Department refused to use the Indian roller 
bearing producer's data because the auditor's report for this producer 
noted that the financial statements were not presented in accordance 
with the generally accepted accounting principles of India. In 
addition, there are conflicting arguments on the record regarding the 
age of the technology used by Acerias and its resultant level of 
efficiency. However, there is not information on the record which 
proves that the technology used by Acerias has had a marked impact on 
its prices.
    Regarding the issue of whether the Department's past practice 
allows for the use of the price list, we disagree with the respondents. 
The conditions for using a price list described in the respondents' 
argument only apply when the price list is used as a substitute for 
sale-by-sale reporting of actual transaction prices in market economy 
cases.
    Although we have used the Acerias price list to value steel coil in 
this investigation and have made an adjustment to the prices in this 
list for inflation, we have not made the additional adjustment to the 
prices for the price trend claimed by the petitioners. This additional 
adjustment was made in the preliminary determination. However, we have 
determined that, after a further review of the information on the 
record, this adjustment is not appropriate, as the information supplied 
by the petitioners to substantiate it was not specific to the Colombian 
domestic market, but was for Latin American export prices. We have 
determined that there is an insufficient link between domestic 
Colombian prices and average Latin American export prices and, 
therefore, we have denied this adjustment (for a further discussion of 
the Department's discussion of this issue, see the May 6, 1996, issues 
memorandum from the Team to Barbara R. Stafford, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Investigations).

Comment 3: Proposed Use of Colombian Import Statistics To Value Steel 
Coil

    The respondents argue that the Colombian import statistics they 
provided are PAPI that should be used in the final determination. They 
also argue the following. First, the lowest import prices are the 
prices paid by large industrial users and should be used by the 
Department in this case to

[[Page 24280]]

value steel coil. Second, the rationale contained in the Department's 
November 21, 1995, steel valuation memorandum (regarding thickness and 
grade) is no longer relevant. Thus, the respondents argue that the 
Department should use the Colombian import statistics to value steel. 
The respondents than state that only limited adjustments need to be 
made if the Colombian import prices are used.
    The respondents also state that petitioners' evidence showing an 
increase in the prices of steel during January 1994 to March 1995 is 
largely anecdotal or based on Metal Bulletin spot prices. The 
respondents argue that the U.S. import data shows no such increase in 
the prices of steel during this time. Furthermore, if there was such an 
increase, the petitioners should have been able to provide their own 
invoices to substantiate this. Finally, since most companies keep 
inventories of key raw materials, a monthly spike in prices will not 
necessarily affect a large user as much as a user which buys 
sporadically.
    The petitioners counter respondents' arguments with the following. 
First, respondents' claim that the lowest Columbian import prices 
reflect the prices paid by large industrial users is sheer speculation. 
Furthermore, the Department had many other reasons for rejecting 
respondents' arguments in the steel valuation memorandum than just 
thickness and grade. However, the petitioners argue that if the 
Department chooses to use the Colombian import statistics submitted by 
the respondents, certain adjustments need to be made.
    Finally, the petitioners argue that the evidence of the steel price 
surge is not anecdotal nor based on spot prices but information 
contained in the Metal Bulletin. They contend that respondent's U.S. 
import statistics are useless to the Department because they provide 
country-specific information for only a handful of exporting countries 
and the totals are skewed by the inclusion of cheap imports from non-
market economies such as Russia. They further contend that the 
information on the record does not allow the Department to identify the 
quantity or value of NME imports so that they may be excluded. Finally, 
the petitioners argue that the limited information in these import 
statistics seems to support petitioners' information regarding steel 
price trends.

DOC Position

    We disagree with the respondents and have not selected the 
Colombian import statistics to value the steel coil. As stated above in 
our response to Comment #2, in this case we believe that the Acerias 
price list is preferable to the Colombian import statistics. 
Accordingly, the issue about how to adjust the Colombian import 
statistics is therefore moot.

Comment 4: Discount for Secondary Steel

    Tepro argues that the Department's rejection of a discount for the 
purchase of secondary steel in the preliminary determination was 
unreasonable and should be corrected for the final determination. To 
support its claim, Tepro argues the following. First, the information 
Tepro provided for the preliminary determination should be sufficient 
to warrant an adjustment. Second, the Department has now verified 
Tepro's gross consumption and scrap rates. These rates do not support 
rejection of the discount. Third, qualitative differences impact price 
and Tepro's supplier sold its steel at a significant discount because 
of qualitative differences. Fourth, the Department itself has 
differentiated between ``first quality'' and ``second quality'' 
merchandise in the Steel Trigger Price Mechanism Procedures Manual. 
Fifth, the reluctance of the Department to grant a discount for 
secondary steel may be based on the fear that the precedent in this 
case would make the Department vulnerable in other cases to similar 
requests for discounts based on qualitative differences in merchandise. 
The last argument notwithstanding, the Department has the obligation to 
select surrogate values which are ``accurate and fair'' and thus, the 
discount should be granted.
    Tepro also states that the information gained at the verification 
proved that it was entitled to this discount. This information 
included: (1) The statement by an official of Tepro's supplier at 
verification that the quality standards for sale of hot-rolled coil to 
Romania in general and Tepro in particular are significantly lower than 
those for export and the discount to Tepro was because of differences 
in quality; and (2) invoices which show that Tepro bought steel during 
the POI at prices lower than Romanian exports to the European Union 
(EU). Tepro also stated that the reason the verifiers did not see 
physical defects in the steel in Tepro's inventory is that this steel 
was of Russian origin and Tepro does not purchase secondary steel from 
its Russian supplier. Finally, Tepro argued that the only information 
on the record that conflicted with Tepro's secondary steel claim is the 
statement from an employee of one of the petitioners who, to Tepro's 
knowledge, had never been to Romania, never visited Tepro or its 
supplier, and had no knowledge of the production process employed by 
Tepro. Thus, the Department's decision is not supported by evidence on 
the record.
    The petitioners counter that Tepro's claim that the secondary steel 
discount should again be rejected for the final determination. To 
support this contention, the petitioner argues first, that nothing has 
been submitted to the Department since the preliminary determination to 
warrant a different conclusion. In particular, Tepro's reported scrap 
rates have not changed, nor has Tepro rebutted the results of the 
metallurgical tests to which the Department referred. Second, no new 
documents were produced at verification to substantiate the claim that 
Tepro uses only secondary steel. The statement on the invoices observed 
at verification was that the steel was ``not designated for exports to 
the EU.'' Respondents' interpretation of this is not buttressed by any 
evidence on the record. Petitioners proffer that the restriction 
probably arises from export controls between the EU and eastern 
European countries or the desire of Romanian producers to avoid 
triggering an EU antidumping action. Furthermore, internal prices in an 
NME country are irrelevant to the Department's analysis because such 
prices are not established by market forces.
    Third, respondents cannot state that the Department's reluctance to 
grant a discount is based on fear of the precedent that would set since 
they cannot speak for the Department, and the petitioners note that the 
Department has previously been receptive to adjustments for qualitative 
differences where they have been established by substantial evidence on 
the record. Fourth, the petitioners had more than one piece of evidence 
disputing respondents' claims; in fact, the metallurgical test not 
mentioned by the respondents was the piece of evidence most damaging to 
the respondents' argument. Finally, although the employee of one of the 
petitioners did not visit Tepro's plant, the Department verifiers did 
and found no evidence to support Tepro's claims.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners. Since the preliminary determination, 
the only additional information on the record regarding this issue is 
the discussion in the verification report and verification exhibits. 
Regarding the statement by Tepro's supplier at verification that it 
granted Tepro a discount because of differences in quality, we do not 
believe

[[Page 24281]]

that it would be appropriate to grant a price adjustment based on 
statements that were not supported by physical evidence. As explained 
in the preliminary determination, Tepro did not provide adequate 
documentation to support its claimed adjustment. The only new 
documentation gained at the verification were invoices that state that 
the merchandise is not designated for exports to the EU. As noted by 
the petitioners, this could have been for a variety of reasons. No 
evidence was provided which conclusively demonstrated that Tepro 
received a discount for buying steel that was of a lower quality or 
grade than standard steel.
    Regarding Tepro's other points, we note the following. First, the 
scrap rates of Tepro, although verified, have not changed since the 
preliminary determination. Furthermore, although we agree with Tepro 
that qualitative differences may affect price and that the Department 
has discussed prime versus secondary quality merchandise in the past, 
this is irrelevant since no such qualitative differences have been 
established here. In addition, Tepro's claim that ``reluctance of the 
Department to grant a discount for secondary steel may be based on the 
fear that the precedent in this case would open up the Department in 
other cases to similar requests for discounts based on qualitative 
differences in merchandise'' is not accurate. As stated above, the 
Department has rejected this adjustment to price because there has been 
no evidence placed on the record which demonstrates that Tepro received 
a discount for buying steel that was of a lower quality or grade than 
standard steel. Finally, the metallurgical test submitted by the 
petitioners showed that the grade of steel used by Tepro was identical 
to the grade of steel used by U.S. and other world producers of the 
subject merchandise. As noted by the petitioners, this test was not 
rebutted by Tepro.

Comment 5: Prices for Different Steel Sizes Matched to Proper Pipe 
Sizes

    The petitioners contend that the Department in certain instances 
incorrectly matched prices for different thicknesses of steel with the 
wrong pipe sizes. They argue that the coil thicknesses reported by 
Tepro are inconsistent with the steel thicknesses specified by ASTM A-
53 grade with which Tepro claims to comply. They also state that prices 
for 3-4mm thick coil may be applied only to pipe that is 2'' diameter 
or smaller.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners and have corrected the wall 
thicknesses for those products that were incorrectly listed. 
Furthermore, we have used the corrected wall thicknesses in the 
matching to the surrogate value for steel coil.

Comment 6: Use of Steel Input Quantities Reported in the Questionnaire 
Response

    The petitioners argue that since Tepro reported its theoretical 
steel weight figures instead of its actual steel weight figures, it 
should be subject to adverse facts available. They also state that, at 
a minimum, the Department should not adjust downward the reported 
amounts by the amount of the difference noted in the verification 
report.

DOC Position

    Since the Department only had time at verification to examine the 
theoretical/actual weight difference for one pipe size, we do not 
believe that it would be appropriate to attempt to convert all weights 
from theoretical to actual for all pipe sizes based on the one size 
examined. Also, as noted in the verification report, the theoretical 
weight was greater than the actual weight for the one size examined. 
Therefore, we have made no adjustments to the theoretical weights 
listed and have accepted them for purposes of the final determination.

Comment 7: Steel Scrap

    The petitioners argue that the steel scrap surrogate used in the 
preliminary determination is aberrational and must be reduced. To 
support its argument, the petitioners make the following points: (1) 
The tariff category used for scrap in 1991 was under- or over-
inclusive; (2) the 1991 scrap/coil ratio in Thailand was completely 
unlike that of other markets; and (3) the scrap/coil ratio has changed 
dramatically since 1991. The petitioners state that the scrap value to 
coil value in other world markets was one-third to one-half the values 
used in the preliminary determination and argue that the Thai scrap/
coil ratios are aberrational, as well as not being contemporaneous with 
the POI. Thus, the Department should instead use the average of three 
contemporaneous ratios calculated by the petitioners.
    The respondents claim that if the Colombian import statistics are 
used to value steel, then they do not object to the use of a lower 
scrap price. The respondents state that, where possible, 
contemporaneous prices should be used.

DOC Position

    We have obtained updated Thai import values for steel coil and 
steel scrap and are using these values to obtain a steel scrap ratio. 
These values are specific to the steel used in the production of steel 
pipe. These values are from the Thai Import Statistics, the same source 
that was used in the preliminary determination, but are based on the 
period from January to June, 1994, and thus, the resultant ratio from 
these figures is more contemporaneous with the POI than the ratio used 
in the preliminary determination. Therefore, any change in the scrap/
coil ratio since 1991 has been incorporated into this new ratio. 
Regarding the argument that this ratio is aberrational, we found no 
other information on scrap ratios for Colombia, the primary surrogate 
country, or Thailand, the secondary surrogate country, which show that 
this rate is aberrational in the surrogate countries. Furthermore, we 
disagree with the petitioners that we should use an average of the 
three scrap ratios calculated by the petitioners as these ratios are 
from countries that are less appropriate surrogate countries than 
Thailand.

Comment 8: Other Raw Materials

    In addition to hot-rolled coil, the respondents contend that the 
Department should use Colombian import statistics on the record to 
value zinc, zinc chloride, ammonium chloride, hydrochloric acid and 
paint.

DOC Position

    We agree with the respondents that we should use Colombian import 
statistics now on the record to value these raw materials. Colombia is 
our first choice as a surrogate country and we have therefore used the 
import statistics to value these raw materials.

Comment 9: Direct and Indirect Labor Inputs for Line 220

    The petitioners state that since Tepro could not substantiate its 
unit labor amounts reported for each size pipe produced on its 
production line 220, the Department should use facts available for 
direct and indirect labor inputs for all subject merchandise above 
three inches diameter. They argue that the methodology suggested at 
verification is untimely, unsubstantiated and unverified and that the 
statute and the Department's policies forbid the use of such 
information. They argue that the Department should use the higher of: 
(1) the highest reported direct and indirect labor input reported for 
pipe of other

[[Page 24282]]

sizes; or (2) the factor used in the petition for 4'' diameter pipe.
    The respondents state that the Department should use the 
alternative methodology suggested by Tepro at verification in order to 
calculate labor factors for line 220.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners, in part. We do not believe that the 
methodology suggested by the respondents at verification is appropriate 
because it was calculated only for one month, and does not arrive at 
the actual labor hours on line 220 for that month. Thus, we believe 
that the use of facts available is appropriate. However, we do not 
agree with the petitioners on the selection of adverse facts available. 
Instead of using the highest reported labor input reported for pipe of 
other sizes, we believe that it is more appropriate to use the highest 
verified direct labor input for the size of pipe on another verified 
line closest to the sizes produced on line 220 and have done so. An 
amount for indirect labor was not added because indirect labor is 
included in the overhead amount.

Comment 10: Factory Overhead, SG&A Expenses and Profit

    For SC&A expenses, the respondents state that the figure used in 
the preliminary determination is inappropriate because it is not 
contemporaneous with the POI. The respondents argue that the Department 
should use the SG&A figure from the 1994-95 Administrative Review of 
Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand 
(1994-95 Administrative Review) rather than the SG&A figure from the 
1987-88 Administrative Review of Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes from Thailand (1987-88 Administrative Review), which 
was used in the preliminary determination. The respondents also argued 
that the petitioners' proposed new SG&A figure, when one makes the 
proper adjustments, serves to underscore the unreasonableness of the 
data used in the preliminary determination.
    For profit, the respondents argue the following. First, since the 
steel price selected by the Department is 30-40 percent higher than the 
steel price paid by Thai pipe producer Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 
(Saha Thai) in the 1994-95 Administrative Review, the Department cannot 
use such high raw material prices and then hypothesize that an eight 
percent profit could be obtained in Thailand, since U.S. import 
statistics confirm that Thai producers sell steel pipe at prices 
similar to that paid for Romanian pipe. Second, there are questions 
about how the profit was calculated in the 1992-93Administrative Review 
and the profit amounts in the 1994-95 Administrative Review contradict 
the profit figures proposed by the petitioners from the 1992-93 
Administrative Review. Third, the Department should rely upon what is 
knows about the Colombian steel industry to calculate profit. 
Information on the record suggests that all sectors of the Colombian 
steel industry are not profitable. Therefore, the Department should use 
a zero profit margin or petitioner's own profit margins.
    The petitioners state that the values used in the preliminary 
determination for factory overhead, SG&A expenses and profit should 
also be used for the final determination. The petitioners argue that 
the information provided by respondents for these factors was submitted 
for the 1994-95 Administrative Review which has not been completed. 
These factors are therefore based on questionnaire responses that may 
have been superseded by subsequent revisions and have not yet been 
determined to be reliable for the case in which they were originally 
filed. In addition,the excerpts themselves are also incomplete. The 
information used in the preliminary determination does not have these 
defects and should therefore be used in the final determination. 
Alternatively, the petitioner argue that the Department should use 
information from the 1992-93 Administrative Review, the most recently 
completed administrative review. This record of this review contains 
publicly-ranged figures for SG&A expenses and profit for Saha Thai. The 
petitioners note that if the Department decides to use information from 
the 1994-95 Administrative Review, it should use the most recent 
amendments or revisions to such data.
    Regarding profit, the petitioners contend that respondents' 
suggestion that the Department use the Acerias profit should be 
rejected because although no objectionable connection has been 
established between Acerias' financial problems and its prices, there 
is definitely a connection between those problems and its profit.

DOC Position

    We agree with the petitioners that the best information to use for 
overhead, SG&A expenses and profit for the final determination in this 
case are the futures from the most recently completed administrative 
review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand. 
In this case, the most recently completed review is the 1992-93 
Administrative Review. We believe that it is not appropriate to use 
figures from an uncompleted review since they may be altered as the 
case progresses. We are therefore using the public figures from the 
1992-93 Administrative Review for overhead and SG&A expenses.
    For profit, since we are using actual public overhead and SG&A 
expense amounts, we believe that it is also appropriate to use the 
actual public profit figure listed in the 1992-93 Administrative 
Review, not the eight percent figure used in the preliminary 
determination, and have done so.

Comment 11: Inland Freight

    The petitioners argue that the Department should use in the final 
determination the costs incurred by Tepro in non-convertible currency 
for domestic inland freight. They state that where surrogate values are 
not available, the Department should use facts available based on data 
in the petition.

DOC Position

    In asking that the Department use the costs incurred by Tepro in 
non-convertible currency for foreign inland freight, the petitioners 
failed to note that the Department applied a surrogate value for 
domestic inland freight in the preliminary determination. We have 
followed the same methodology for purposes of the final determination. 
The inland freight distance between Tepro and the Romanian port was 
reported by Tepro in its questionnaire response.

Comment 12: Brokerage

    The respondents argue that the Department should use the brokerage 
figure for Saha Thai contained in the 1994-95 Administrative Review of 
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand for purposes 
of the final determination.

DOC Position

    We disagree with the respondents. As mentioned above (see Issue 
#12), we believe that it is appropriate not to use the figures from an 
uncompleted review where possible since these figures may be altered as 
the case progresses. We are therefore using the same public values we 
used in the final determination from Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe 
Fittings from Thailand to value foreign brokerage and handling.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquiation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of

[[Page 24283]]

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Romania, that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Customs Service 
shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 
estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price as 
shown below. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the 
suspension of liquidation based on the Department's preliminary 
determination may not remain in effect for more than six months 
(including the statutory permissible extension). In accordance with 
this provision, these suspension of liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until May 28, 1996.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
                          Exporter                            percentage
                                                                margin  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metagrimex S.A.............................................        85.12
Metalexportimport S.A......................................        77.61
Romanian-Wide Rate.........................................        85.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will, within 45 days, determine whether these imports are 
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. 
If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material 
injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all 
securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines 
that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping 
duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on 
all imports of the subject merchandise entered for consumption on or 
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the 
Act.

    Dated: May 6, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-11941 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M