[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 251 (Monday, December 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68708-68712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-33173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from two respondents, the Department 
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 
and tube from Mexico. This review covers two manufacturers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (``POR'') is 
November 1, 1994, through October 31, 1995.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to 
assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between export price 
(``EP'') and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, Charles Rast, Robin Gray 
or Linda Ludwig, Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 7866, 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0414 (Drury), (202) 482-
5811 (Rast), (202) 482-0196 (Gray), or (202) 482-3833 (Ludwig).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

    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

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on circular 
welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico on November 2, 1992 
(57 FR 49453). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to 
Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for 
the 1994/95 review period on November 1, 1995 (60 FR 55541). On 
November 29, 1995, respondent Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from 
Mexico. On November 30, 1995, respondent Tuberia Nacional S.A. de C.V. 
(``TUNA'') requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of this order. We initiated this review on December 8, 1995. See 
60 FR 44414 (September 15, 1995).
    Under Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of administrative reviews if it determines 
that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory 
time limit of 365 days. On July 19, 1996, the Department extended the 
time limits for preliminary and final results in this case. See 
Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 
FR 40603 (August 5, 1996).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The review of ``circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube'' 
covers products 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, or 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 conditioning 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 applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outlined above are included within the scope of this 
review, except 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. In 
accordance with the Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry (56 
FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L line pipe 
specification, or pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe 
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard pipe 
specifications, which fall within the physical parameters as outlined 
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 
pipelines, are outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.3010.00, 
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. These HTS item numbers are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain 
dispositive.
    The POR is November 1, 1994 through October 31, 1995. This review 
covers

[[Page 68709]]

sales of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube by Hylsa and 
TUNA.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by the respondents using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, 
and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
versions of the verification reports.

Transactions Reviewed

    In accordance with section 751 of the Act, the Department is 
required to determine the EP and NV of each entry of subject 
merchandise during the relevant review period.
    In determining NV, based on our review of the submissions by Hylsa, 
the Department determined that Hylsa need not report ``downstream'' 
sales in the home market, which constituted a small quantity of Hylsa's 
home market sales. See Letter to Shearman & Sterling from the 
Department (August 9, 1996), a copy of which, as well as copies of 
other letters and memoranda referred to in this notice, are available 
in Room B-099 of the Department's Central Records Unit. Thus, Hylsa did 
not report downstream sales in the home market. Hylsa's downstream home 
market sales are properly excluded from our determination of NV because 
they were not made in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary 
course of trade, nor at the same level of trade as the EP sales. See 
Section 773 (a)(1) (A) and (B) of the Act. TUNA, on the other hand, has 
reported its downstream sales, and in accordance with Section 773 of 
the Act these sales have been used in our determination of NV for this 
respondent.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered each 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube product produced by the 
respondents, covered by the descriptions in the ``Scope of the Review'' 
section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home market during the 
POR, to be a foreign like product for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of circular welded non-
alloy steel pipe and tube. For each of the products produced by the 
respondents within the scope of the A-201-805 order, we examined the 
categories of merchandise listed in Section 771 (16) of the Act for 
purposes of model matching. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis 
of the characteristics listed in Appendix VI of the Department's March 
22, 1996, antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, 
we matched each foreign like product based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondent and verified by the 
Department. Where sales were made in the home market on a different 
weight basis from the U.S. market (e.g. theoretical versus actual 
weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using 
the conversion factors supplied by the respondents, before making our 
fair-value comparisons.
    The Department's practice is to use a methodology which accounts 
for distortionary inflation in instances where such inflation existed 
during the period of review. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from 
Mexico 61 FR 51676 (October 3, 1996); Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico 52 FR 6361 
(March 3, 1987). In this case, consistent with our prior practice, we 
determined that distortionary inflation existed during the period of 
review. See Letter to Shearman & Sterling from the Department (August 
9, 1996). In order to take into account the rate of inflation in Mexico 
during the POR, we compared each foreign like product to a product 
exported to the U.S. and sold in the same month. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales within the same month, we compared U.S. sales to the next most 
similar foreign like product (on the basis of the characteristics 
listed in Appendix VI of the Department's March 22, 1996, antidumping 
questionnaire) which was sold in the same month.

Fair-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 
and tube by the respondents to the United States were made at less than 
fair value, we compared EP to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2), we compared individual U.S. transactions to monthly 
weighted average NVs.

Date of Sale

    Depending on the channel of trade and on the date after which the 
key terms of sale could not be changed, we treated one of the following 
dates as the date of the sale: the date of the invoice or the date of 
shipment.

Export Price

    We calculated the price of United States sales based on EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, when the subject merchandise 
was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to the 
date of importation.
    For both respondents, we calculated EP based on packed prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States. Where appropriate, in 
accordance with Section 772 of the Act, we made deductions from the 
starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, international freight, insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties. For Hylsa, we 
disallowed certain rebates which were claimed. (See Analysis Memo to 
the File from John Drury and Charlie Rast, dated December 19, 1996.)

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
home market, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of 
trade.
    Where appropriate, in accordance with Section 773(a)(6)(A) of the 
Act, we deducted rebates, discounts, inland freight, inland insurance, 
and packing. Based on our verification of home-market sales responses, 
we made adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in credit 
expenses (offset where applicable by interest income), and post-sale 
warehousing. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home-
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP 
comparisons.
    In comparisons to EP sales, we also increased NV by U.S. packing 
costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made 
adjustments to NV for differences in cost attributable to differences 
in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with the Department's 
practice, we

[[Page 68710]]

based NV on constructed value (``CV'') where, for the most similar 
product match, the difference in merchandise adjustment for any product 
comparison exceeded 20 percent.
Hylsa
    Based on our analysis and verification of home-market sales 
responses, we are disallowing adjustments for additional inland freight 
and a steel supplier rebate. For additional inland freight, we 
attempted, through our analysis and conversations with company 
officials, to confirm the accuracy of the claimed adjustment. We 
determined at verification that the company may not have used its own 
calculation methodology correctly, since the numbers used in the 
calculation may not have accurately reflected actual inland freight. In 
addition, we do not believe that the allocation methodology is 
accurate. At verification, we found that additional inland freight may 
have been allocated to certain home market sales to which no freight 
charges should apply. See Memorandum Reporting Verification of Sections 
A-C Questionnaire Response Submitted by Hylsa.
    For the steel supplier rebate, we disallowed the adjustment because 
we did not consider the acquisition of the coil from a division of 
Hylsa to be a purchase but, rather, considered it to be a cost input. 
Hylsa's Tubular Products division obtains coil from the Flat Products 
division. These are two divisions within the same corporate entity. 
Therefore, we have not treated the transfer of coil as a sale. Rather 
than use the claimed rebate in the calculation of EP, which would be 
appropiate if we treated the acquisition of the coil as a sale, we used 
the cost of the acquisition, which we verified, in the calculation of 
Cost of Production, in accordance with Section 773 (b)(3)(A). See 
Offshore Jackets and Piles from Japan, 51 FR 11788 (April 7, 1986).

Differences in Levels of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action which accompanied the passage of the 
URAA (H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 829-831 (1994)) 
(``SAA'), to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV 
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).
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A), if sales at different 
levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the NV 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 
between the levels of trade 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 NV is determined.
    In order to determine that there is a difference in level of trade, 
the Department must find that two sales have been made at different 
phases of marketing, or the equivalent. Different phases of marketing 
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences 
in selling functions (even substantial ones) are not alone sufficient 
to establish a difference in the level of trade. Similarly, seller and 
customer descriptions (such as ``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'') are 
useful in identifying different levels of trade, but are insufficient 
to establish that there is a difference in the level of trade.
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information about the selling activities of the producers/exporters 
associated with each phase or marketing, or the equivalent. We asked 
each respondent to establish a claimed LOTs based on these marketing 
activities and selling functions. In reviewing the selling functions 
reported by the respondents, we considered all types of selling 
activities that had been performed on both a qualitative and 
quantitative basis. To test the claimed LOTs, we analyzed the selling 
activities associated with the marketing phases which respondents 
reported. In applying this test, we expect that, if a party claims that 
LOTS are different for different groups of sales through different 
channels, the functions and activities of the seller should be either 
dissimilar or different for each channel. The Department does not only 
count activities, but weighs the overall function performed at each 
claimed level of trade. In determining whether separate LOTs existed in 
the home market, pursuant to section 773 (a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price of the 
home market sales before any adjustment. Below is a summary of our 
findings:
A. Hylsa
    In its questionnaire responses, Hylsa stated that there were no 
differences in its selling activities by customer categories within 
each market. In order to confirm independently the absence of separate 
levels of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we 
examined Hylsa's questionnaire responses for indications that Hylsa's 
functions as a seller differed qualitatively and quantitatively among 
customer categories. Where possible, we further examined whether each 
selling function was performed on a substantial portion of sales. See 
Proposed Regulations, 61 FR at 7348.
    Hylsa sold to end-users in the U.S. market. In the home market, 
Hylsa sold to local distributors and end-users. Hylsa performed 
essentially the same selling functions at the same stage of 
distribution on sales to all its home-market customers, as well as to 
U.S. customers. Thus, our analysis of the questionnaire response leads 
us to conclude that sales within or between each market are not made at 
different levels of trade. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all 
sales in the home market and the U.S. market were made at the same 
level of trade. Therefore, all price comparisons are at the same level 
of trade and an adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is 
unnecessary.
B. TUNA
    TUNA sells subject merchandise directly to the United States. In 
the home market, it either sells through Lamina y Placa (an affiliated 
company) to end users (Channel 1) or to affiliated distributors/
resellers which are part of the Associates Division (Channel 2) See 
Questionnaire Response for Section A (April 19, 1996).
    In its questionnaire responses, TUNA stated that its home-market 
sales through affiliated distributors (Channel 2) were at a different 
level of trade than its other home-market sales directly from Lamina y 
Placa (Channel 1) and U.S. sales. The respondent indicated that a 
greater number of selling functions are provided to these home market 
affiliated resellers than to either U.S. customers or unaffiliated end-
users which purchase directly from Lamina y Placa in the home market.
    In order to confirm independently the presence of separate levels 
of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we examined 
TUNA's questionnaire responses for indications of substantive 
differences in selling functions, and reviewed this issue during the 
sales verification in Mexico.

[[Page 68711]]

Where possible, we further examined whether each selling function was 
performed on a substantial portion of sales. See Proposed Regulations, 
61 FR at 7348.
    At verification, the company TUNA adequately supported its claim 
that the home market affiliated distributors perform selling functions 
which, on a qualitative and quantitative basis, are different from the 
functions performed on either TUNA's other home market sales (i.e. 
sales made through Lamina y Placa directly to unaffiliated end-users, 
or Channel 1) or respondent's sales to U.S. customers their U.S. sales. 
In general, we found that the customers which purchased subject 
merchandise through Channel 1 were larger than those who made purchases 
through Channel 2. In addition, sales made through Channel 2 involved 
added layers of expenses such as distribution (e.g. transportation and 
storage) and sales expenses (the cost of added sales personnel and 
other related expenses). Finally, Lamina y Placa provided services and 
additional selling functions to affiliates that it did not provide to 
non-affiliated customers. See Verification Exhibit 48 and Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response Exhibit 5 (August 9, 1996).
    Thus, our analysis of the questionnaire responses leads us to 
conclude that sales within the home market by Lamina y Placa to 
unaffiliated end-users, and sales by affiliated resellers to 
unaffiliated end-users, were at two different levels of trade. Sales to 
the United States were at the same LOT as sales by Lamina y Placa to 
unaffiliated end users. To the extent possible, we will compare sales 
made in the U.S. to sales made directly by Lamina y Placa to 
unaffiliated end users in the home market (Channel 1), which are at the 
same level of trade as the U.S. sales. To the extent that it is 
necessary to match U.S. sales to home market sales at a different level 
of trade (Channel 2), we will first compare home market sales at the 
two different levels of trade to determine if there was a pattern of 
price differences at the two levels of trade. If we determine that 
there is a pattern of price differences, for any U.S. sales that are 
matched to home market sales of a different level of trade, we will 
make a level of trade adjustment.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

    Petitioners alleged, on July 23, 1996 (with respect to Hylsa), and 
July 9, 1996 (with respect to TUNA), that Hylsa and TUNA sold circular 
welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes in the home market at prices 
below COP. Based on these allegations, in accordance with Section 
773(b) of the Act, the Department determined, on August 26, 1996 (for 
Hylsa), and on August 9,1996 (for TUNA), that it had reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that Hylsa and TUNA had sold the subject 
merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. See Letter to 
Shearman and Sterling and Decision Memorandum (August 26, 1996) and 
Letter to White and Case and Decision Memorandum (August 9, 1996). We 
therefore initiated cost investigations with regard to Hylsa and TUNA 
in order to determine whether the respondents made home-market sales 
during the POR at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act.
    Before making any fair-value comparisons, we conducted the COP 
analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
    We calculated the COP based on the sum of each respondent'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.
    Based on our verifications of the cost responses submitted by Hylsa 
and TUNA, we adjusted each company's reported COP to reflect certain 
adjustments to the cost of manufacturing and general and administrative 
expenses.
B. Test of Home-Market Prices
    We used the respondent's weighted-average COP, as adjusted (see 
above), for the period November 1, 1994, through October 31, 1995. 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 
determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below 
the COP, we examined whether (1) within an extended period of time, 
such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) such sales were 
made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the 
COP to the home-market prices (not including VAT), less any applicable 
movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
C. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of 
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 during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we found 
that sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within 
an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act, and were not at prices which would permit recovery 
of all costs within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. When we found that below-cost sales 
had been made in ``substantial quantities'' and were not at prices 
which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time, we disregarded the below-cost sales in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) 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.
D. Calculation of CV
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of respondents' cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
U.S. packing costs, interest expenses, and profit. In accordance with 
sections 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred 
and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and 
sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for 
consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the 
weighted-average home-market selling expenses. Based on our 
verification of the cost responses submitted by Hylsa and TUNA, we 
adjusted each company's reported CV to reflect adjustments to COM and 
G&A. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for home-market 
indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP comparisons.

Reimbursement

    In pre-verification comments, Petitioners requested that the 
Department examine the issue of reimbursement for both TUNA and Hysla. 
For TUNA, we preliminarly determine that there was no reimbursement 
based upon the verification of TUNA's U.S. affiliate. For Hylsa, the 
issue is moot since the sales in question were found to be without 
margins at this time.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
Section 773A(a) directs the

[[Page 68712]]

Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign 
currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate involves a 
``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's practice, we have 
determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless 
Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918--March 6, 1996). The benchmark 
is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 business 
days. When we determined a fluctuation existed, we substituted the 
benchmark for the daily rate. However, for the preliminary results we 
have not determined that a fluctuation exists, and we have not 
substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

             Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipes and Tubes            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               Average  
               Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin  
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa......................................................         1.36
TUNA.......................................................         1.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a 
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not 
later than 180 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as 
provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate 
for each respondent will be the rate established in the final results 
of this administrative review; (2) exporters not covered in this 
review, but covered in the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate 
will continue to be the company-specific rate published from the LTFV 
investigation; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, or the original LTFV, 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) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 32.62 percent, the 
``all others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigations. These 
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 Sec. 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. Sec. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
Sec. 353.22.

    Dated: December 20, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-33173 Filed 12-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P