[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35188-35193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17160]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-489-501]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded 
carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey in response to a request by the 
petitioners.\1\ This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the 
United States during the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Allied Tube & Conduit and Wheatland Tube Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping 
duties equal to the differences between the United States price and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each 
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Stagner or Magd Zalok, 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) 
482-1673 or (202) 482-4162, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round 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).

Background

    On May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24831), the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative 
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipe and Tube from Turkey covering the period May 1, 1994, through 
April 30, 1995 (58 FR 53709). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1), 
in May 1995, the petitioners requested a review of the following 
producers and exporters of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube: 
(1) The Borusan Group \2\ (Borusan); (2) Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru 
Industrisi T.A.S. (Mannesmann); (3) Yucelboru Ihracat, Ithalat ve 
Pazarlama A.S./Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yucelboru); and 
(4) Erbosan

[[Page 35189]]

Erviyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan). On June 15, 1995, the 
Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review (60 FR 31447). The Department is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Including Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalar A.S., Kartal Boru 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30 and November 13, 1995, respectively, Yucelboru and 
Mannesmann stated that they did not have any shipments during the 
period of review (POR). In November 1995, Borusan and Erbosan submitted 
responses to the Department's September 12, 1995, questionnaire. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Borusan and Erbosan in May 1996. 
Responses to these questionnaires were received in June 1996.
    On January 16, 1996, the petitioners alleged that Borusan made 
sales at below its cost of production (COP). On May 3, 1996, we 
initiated an investigation of sales below cost. In June 1996, Borusan 
submitted a response to the Department's May 23, 1996, cost 
questionnaire.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 
406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end 
finish (plain end, bevelled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and 
tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be 
called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. 
Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance 
of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in 
plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic 
sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be 
used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for 
fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit 
shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or 
those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard 
pipe application. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outlined above are included in the scope of this review, 
except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
subheadings: 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.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Facts Available

    In November 1995, we received a questionnaire response from 
Erbosan. In addition, Erbosan responded to a supplemental questionnaire 
in June 1996. In its responses, Erbosan did not provide: (1) The data 
necessary for the Department to quantify the cost attributable to 
physical differences in its U.S. and home market merchandise; (2) U.S. 
and home market packing expenses; and (3) duty drawback amounts.
    Section 776(a)(1) states that if necessary information is not 
available on the record, the Department ``shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.'' Section 782(e) provides that the 
Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted 
by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does 
not meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department 
if: (1) The information is submitted by the deadline established for 
its submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information and meeting the requirements established by 
the Department with respect to the information; and (5) the information 
can be used without undue difficulties. Accordingly, in using the facts 
available, the Department may disregard information submitted by a 
respondent if any of the five criteria has not been met.
    Due to the above-referenced omissions, we have determined that 
Erbosan's response is so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for calculating dumping margins for these preliminary results 
(section 782(e)(3) of the Act). Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a) 
of the Act, we are using facts available to calculate a margin for 
Erbosan.
    The Department must then determine whether an adverse inference is 
warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, where 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 from (the Department) * * * (the Department) may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.''
    Despite there being insufficient information to calculate a 
preliminary margin, we believe that Erbosan has cooperated to the best 
of its ability in supplying the requested information in this review. 
Therefore, we are not using an adverse inference in selecting from 
among the facts otherwise available (see section 776(b) of the Act).
    Erbosan is a new respondent that has not been investigated before. 
Therefore, its past entries have been subject to the ``All Others'' 
rate from the original investigation. We have determined that continued 
use of the rate is warranted as a cooperative facts available rate for 
purposes of these preliminary results. Accordingly, we have assigned to 
Erbosan a margin of 14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate from the 
original investigation.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA), provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value (see H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d 
Sess. 870 (1996).
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as facts available, the Department will disregard the 
margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review (61 FR 6812, 6814, February 22, 1996)) (where the Department

[[Page 35190]]

disregarded the highest margin as adverse best information available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case 
there are no circumstances present to indicate that the selected margin 
is not appropriate to use as facts available.
    Although we are using facts available for the preliminary results, 
we intend to provide Erbosan an opportunity to submit the missing 
information referenced above as part of a response to another 
supplemental questionnaire. If Erbosan's reported information is 
accurate, complete and verified, we will use such information in the 
final results.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated for 
Borusan transaction-specific Export Prices (EPs) for comparison to 
either weighted-average NVs or constructed values. The EPs and NVs were 
calculated and compared by product characteristics and levels of trade. 
For price to price comparisons, we compared identical merchandise, 
where possible. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in 
the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar comparisons 
based on the characteristics listed in the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire. We excluded certain products in the home market from our 
analysis because there were either missing values or because the 
merchandise was not part of the foreign like product.

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA 
accompanying the URAA, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the 
Department will calculate normal value based on sales at the same level 
of trade as the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales 
in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S. 
sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign 
markets at different levels of trade (see also, Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy (61 FR 30326, 
June 14, 1996) (Pasta from Italy)).
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at 
different levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the 
normal value to account for the difference in level of trade if two 
conditions are met. First, there must be differences between the actual 
selling functions performed by the seller at the level of trade of the 
U.S. sale and the level of trade of the normal value sale. Second, the 
differences must affect price comparability as evidenced by a pattern 
of consistent price differences between sales at the different levels 
of trade in the market in which normal value is determined.
    In implementing these principles in this case, the Department's 
first task was to obtain information about the selling activities of 
the producers/exporters. Information relevant to level of trade 
comparisons and adjustments was requested of Borusan in our May 1996 
supplemental questionnaire. We asked Borusan to establish any claimed 
levels of trade based on the selling functions provided to each 
proposed customer group, and to document and explain any claims for a 
level of trade adjustment.
    Our review of Borusan's submission shows that it has identified 
levels of trade based on its selling activities by customer categories 
and channels of distribution. In order to confirm whether separate 
levels of trade actually existed within or between the U.S. and home 
markets, we reviewed the selling functions attributable to the levels 
of trade claimed by Borusan. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the 
Act, and the SAA at 827, in identifying levels of trade for directly 
observed export price and normal value sales, we considered the selling 
functions reflected in the starting price, before any adjustments. In 
reporting selling functions, whenever sales within a level of trade 
were made by or through an affiliated company or agent, Borusan 
``collapsed'' the affiliated parties before considering the functions 
performed.
    The selling functions and activities examined for each reported 
level of trade were: (1) Inventory maintenance; (2) technical services; 
(3) warranty services; (4) customer advice and product information; (5) 
agent coordination of production and delivery; (6) general vs. 
speciality sales staff; (7) delivery arrangements; (8) sales from 
warehouse vs. direct sales; and (9) direct advertising. We did not 
consider trade discounts as a selling function (see Pasta from Italy).
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by Borusan for each 
claimed level of trade, we considered all types of selling functions, 
both claimed and unclaimed, that had been performed. Where possible, we 
further examined whether the selling function was performed on a 
substantial portion of sales within the relevant level of trade. In 
analyzing whether separate levels of trade exist in this review, we 
found that no single selling function in the pipe and tube industry was 
sufficient to warrant a separate level of trade (see, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments (61 FR 7307, 7348, 
February 27, 1996)).
    In determining whether separate levels of trade existed in or 
between the U.S. and home markets, the Department considered the level 
of trade claims of Borusan, but the ultimate decision was based on the 
Department's analysis of the selling functions associated with the 
levels of trade reported by Borusan.
    For Borusan, we determined that there is one U.S. level of trade 
and three home market levels of trade, one of which we determined to be 
identical in aggregate selling functions to that found in the United 
States. We compared sales at the sole level of trade in the U.S. market 
to sales at the identical home market level of trade. If no match was 
available at the same level of trade, we compared sales at the sole 
level of trade in the U.S. market to sales at the next most similar 
home market level of trade. We then examined whether a level of trade 
adjustment was appropriate for Borusan when comparing sales at its U.S. 
level of trade to sales at the two non-identical home market levels of 
trade.
    To determine whether a level of trade adjustment was necessary, we 
examined, on a monthly basis, the prices of comparable product 
categories, net of all adjustments, between sales at the one identical 
home market level of trade and sales at each of the two non-identical 
home market levels of trade. We found a consistent pattern of price 
differences between sales at these levels of trade. Therefore, for non-
identical level of trade matches, we made a level of trade adjustment 
based on the weighted-average difference between the prices of the 
product at the identical home market level of trade and each of the 
products at the two non-identical home market levels of trade in the 
given month. If no match was found, we compared EP to constructed 
value.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of pipe and tube to the United States 
were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    Turkey experienced an inflation rate of over 75 percent during the 
POR, as measured by the wholesale price index published in 
International Financial Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid the 
distortions caused by the effects of this level of inflation on prices, 
we limited our comparisons to sales in the same month and did not apply 
the Department's 90/60 day rule.

[[Page 35191]]

Export Price

    For Borusan, 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 
Constructed Export Price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts of this investigation.
    We based EP on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), 
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign inland 
insurance, international freight and charges. We recalculated credit 
expenses due to errors in Borusan's credit methodology. Additionally, 
we added countervailing duties and duty drawback. We disallowed 
Borusan's claimed value-added tax drawback because no statutory 
authority exists for such an adjustment.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared Borusan's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since Borusan's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. We 
calculated NV as noted in the ``Price to Price Comparisons'' and 
``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the petitioner's allegation, the Department found 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Borusan's sales in the 
home market were made at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether Borusan made home market sales during the POR at 
prices below its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP based on the sum of Borusan's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) 
and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. As 
noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced 
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the 
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, 
we requested that Borusan submit monthly production costs incurred 
during each month of the POR. For a small number of sales, Borusan did 
not report production costs. These sales were not matched to any U.S. 
sales. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis. We 
calculated a simple-average cost for each product after indexing the 
reported monthly costs of manufacturing during the POR to an equivalent 
currency level using the wholesale price index for Turkey. The simple-
average cost of manufacturing was then restated in the currency value 
of each respective month and used to calculate monthly COP and CV for 
each product. We relied on Borusan's submitted costs except in the 
following specific instances where the reported costs were improperly 
valued:
    (1) Borusan reduced its reported coil costs by inventory holding 
gains. Our current cost methodology for economies with significant 
inflation requires valuing any materials used to produce the subject 
merchandise at the average purchase price of those materials during the 
month of shipment. We therefore adjusted coil costs by removing these 
holding gains.
    (2) Borusan reported interest expenses which reflect a deduction 
for foreign exchange gains. We adjusted these interest expenses by 
excluding the foreign exchange gains since Borusan did not describe the 
nature of the transactions giving rise to the gains.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We used Borusan's adjusted monthly COP amounts and the wholesale 
price index from the government of Turkey's State Institute of 
Statistics to compute an annual weighted average COP for the POR. We 
compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the 
foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in 
order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below 
the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and 
direct selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made 
at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act). Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below 
the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and calculated NV 
based on CV, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain pipe and tube products, more than 20 
percent of Borusan's home market sales were sold at below the COP. 
Further, we did not find that the prices for these sales provided for 
the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore 
excluded these sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-
cost sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1). For those pipe and tube products for which there were no 
above-cost sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared export 
prices to CV.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Borusan's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A and 
U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales databases. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the 
actual amounts incurred and realized by Borusan in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. We calculated CV 
based on the methodology described in the calculation of COP above. For 
selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling 
expenses.

Price to Price Comparisons

    For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on home market prices. For Borusan, we 
calculated NV based on FOB mill/warehouse or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers, or prices to affiliated customers which were 
determined to be at arm's length (see discussion below regarding these 
sales). We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price 
for inland freight, pre-sale warehouse expense, discounts, and rebates. 
We recalculated credit expenses to correct for missing payment dates.
    Additionally, we added late payment charges. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs.

[[Page 35192]]

    In addition, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances of 
sale, in accordance with section 773 (a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These 
circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses. We also 
made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We 
calculated simple average variable and total costs of manufacturing by 
product after indexing the reported monthly costs using the wholesale 
price index for Turkey. We then indexed the average variable and total 
costs of manufacturing to restate them in the currency value of each 
respective month. The adjusted monthly variable costs of manufacturing 
for U.S. and home market products were then compared to arrive at the 
difference in merchandise adjustment. For a single U.S. product, where 
no costs were reported, we assigned the highest reported U.S. variable 
cost of manufacture as facts available. Where the difference in 
merchandise adjustment for any product comparison exceeded 20 percent, 
we based normal value on CV.
    To determine whether Borusan's affiliated sales were made at arm's 
length, we compared the gross unit prices of sales to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct and indirect 
selling expenses, and packing (see the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Argentina (58 FR 37062, 37077, July 9, 1993)). We included those 
sales that passed the arm's length test in our analysis (see 19 CFR 
353.45(a)).

Price to CV Comparisons

    Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the 
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the 
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made 
currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow 
Jones Service, as published in the Wall Street Journal.
    Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate 
in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the 
daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is the Department's practice 
to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs 
from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as 
the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days.
    However, we believe that it is appropriate in this case to use 
actual daily exchange rates for currency conversion purposes, rather 
than the benchmark rate. As noted in Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency 
Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996), the Department is continuing 
to examine the appropriateness of the currency conversion policy in 
situations where the foreign currency depreciates substantially against 
the dollar over the POI. In those situations, it may be appropriate to 
rely on daily exchange rates. When the rate of domestic price inflation 
is significant, as it is in this case, it is important that we use as a 
basis for NV home market prices that are as contemporaneous as possible 
with the date of the U.S. sale. This is to minimize the extent to which 
calculated dumping margins are overstated or understated due solely to 
price inflation that occurred in the intervening time period between 
the U.S. and home market sales. For this reason, we have used the daily 
exchange rates for currency conversion purposes.
    Further, section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60 day 
adjustment period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement. 
Such an adjustment period is required only when the foreign currency is 
appreciating against the U.S. dollar. No adjustment period is warranted 
in this review, because the Turkish Lira generally remained constant or 
depreciated against the dollar during the POR.

Verification

    On June 7, 1996, the petitioners requested that the Department 
conduct verification of all factual information submitted by the 
respondents upon which the Department relies in its final results. 
Although this request was untimely and therefore not in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.307(v)(A), the petitioners stated that this request should 
not be rejected due to the fact that: (1) No verification has been 
conducted in a review of the order since the 1986-87 administrative 
review; (2) a sales below cost of production investigation had only 
recently been initiated; and (3) no response had been received on 
petitioners' request for a verification of the 1993-94 administrative 
review. The petitioners stated that the delay in the completion of the 
1993-94 review had impeded their ability to timely assess the need for 
verification in this review.
    Although the petitioners' request was untimely, we believe that in 
this case, good cause for verification exists pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.36(a)(iii) since: (1) No verification has been conducted since the 
1986-87 administrative review; (2) we expect that there will be 
significant post-preliminary results submissions of information; and 
(3) this review includes a company (Erbosan) that has never been 
subject to a verification. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.36, we plan to verify the sales and cost response of 
Borusan and the sales response of Erbosan (provided that Erbosan 
responds in full to the next supplemental questionnaire) in this 
administrative review.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 
1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
           Manufacturer/exporter              Review period    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borusan...................................    5/1/94-4/30/95        2.97
Erbosan...................................    5/1/94-4/30/95       14.74
Mannesmann................................    5/1/94-4/30/95     3 23.12
Yucelboru.................................    5/1/94-4/30/95    4 28.28 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ No shipments subject to the review. Rate is from the last relevant  
  segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.            
\4\ Ibid.                                                               

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 10 days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first 
workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 
days of the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after 
the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the 
final results of this administrative review, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between EP and NV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

[[Page 35193]]

    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 752(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates 
for Borusan and Erbosan will be the rates established in the final 
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent 
and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of section 733(b)(3) of 
the Act, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the 
Department, the cash deposit rate will be the ``All Others'' rate, as 
set forth below.
    On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), in 
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and 
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), 
decided that once an ``All Others'' rate is established for a company, 
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department 
has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is 
appropriate to reinstate the original ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping 
findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``All Others'' rate from 
the original investigation, the Department has determined that it is 
appropriate to adopt the ``New Shipper'' rate established in the first 
final results of administrative review published by the Department (or 
that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result 
of litigation) as the ``All Others'' rate for the purposes of 
establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative 
reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty 
order, the ``All Others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 
14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Date: June 27, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17160 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P