[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31070-31072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-008]


Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: 
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 a request from the petitioners, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded steel pipes and 
tubes from Taiwan. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the 
subject merchandise to the United States and the period May 1, 1995 
through April 30, 1996. The review indicates the existence of sales 
below normal value during the period of review.
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess 
antidumpting duties on all appropriate entries.
    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 (no longer than five pages, including 
footnotes).

effective date: June 6, 1997.

for further information contact: Michael J. Heaney or Linda Ludwig, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475/3833.

Applicable Statute

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on certain 
circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan on May 7, 1984 
(49 FR 19369). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity To 
Request Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 
1995/1996 review period on May 8, 1996 (61 FR 20791). On May 24, 1996, 
the petitioners, Allied Tube & Conduit Corp., Wheatland Tube Company, 
Sawhill Tubular Corp., Division of Armco Inc., and Laclede Steel Co., 
filed a request for review of Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh 
Hsing) on May 24, 1996. We initiated the review of

[[Page 31071]]

Yieh Hsing on June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32771).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain circular 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes. The Department defines such 
merchandise as welded carbon steel pipes and tubes of circular cross 
section, with walls not thinner than 0.065 inch and 0.375 inch or more 
but not over 4\1/2\ inches in outside diameter. These products are 
commonly referred to in the industry as ``standard pipe'' and are 
produced to various American Society for Testing Materials 
specifications, most notably A-53, A-120 or A-135. Standard pipe is 
currently classified under Harmonized Tariff schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
and 7306.30.5055. Although the HSTUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    The review covers the period May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996. 
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751 
of the Act, as amended.

United States Price (USP)

    In calculating USP, the Department treated Yieh Hsing's sales as 
export price (EP) sales, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, 
because the merchandise was sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior 
to the date of importation and the constructed export price methodology 
was not warranted by the facts of the record. EP was based on the 
delivered, packed prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States. 
We made adjustments, where applicable, for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage charges, and ocean freight in accordance with section 
772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of 
certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes in the home market 
(HM) to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value (NV), we 
compared the volume of home market sales of subject merchandise to the 
volume of subject merchandise sold in the United States, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Yieh Hsing's aggregate volume of 
HM sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of 
its respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Therefore, we have based NV on HM sales.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(6), we adjusted NV, where 
appropriate, by deducting home market packing expenses and adding U.S. 
packing expenses. We also made deductions to NV for HM inland freight, 
and quantity discounts. Finally, we made an adjustment to NV for 
differences in credit expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the 
Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade as the U.S. sale. When there are no 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 a 
different level of trade. The NV level of trade is that of the 
starting-price sales in the home market. For EP sales, the relevant 
transaction for the level of trade analysis is the sale from the 
exporter to the unaffiliated purchaser.
    To determine whether home market sales are a different level of 
trade than U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales are at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. The 
marketing process in both markets begins with goods being sold by the 
producer and extends to the sale to the final user. We review and 
compare the distribution systems in the home market and the United 
States, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent 
and level of selling expenses for each claimed level of trade. Customer 
categories such as distributor, retailers or end-users are commonly 
used by respondents to describe levels of trade, but without 
substantiation, they are insufficient to establish that a claimed level 
of trade is valid. An analysis of the chain of distribution and of the 
selling functions substantiates or invalidates the claimed customer 
categorization levels. If the claimed levels are different, the selling 
functions performed in selling to each level should also be different. 
Conversely, if customer levels are nominally the same, the selling 
functions performed should also be the same. Different levels of trade 
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences 
in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone sufficient 
to establish a difference in the levels of trade. Differences in levels 
of trade are characterized by purchasers at different stages in the 
chain of distribution and sellers performing qualitatively different 
functions in selling to them.
    When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different 
level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference 
in level of trade affects price comparability. We determine any effect 
on price comparability by examining sales at different levels of trade 
in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home 
market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of 
trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we 
calculate the difference in the average of the net prices of the same 
models sold at different levels of trade. We use the average percentage 
difference between these net prices to adjust NV when the level of 
trade of NV is different from that of the export sale. If there is a 
pattern of no price differences, then the difference in level of trade 
does not have a price effect and, therefore, no adjustment is 
necessary.
    In this review, Yieh Hsing provided information with respect to its 
selling activities associated with home market and EP sales. We 
determined that there is no difference in selling functions between 
Yieh Hsing's three classes of HM customers. Each of the three classes 
of customers (distributors, retailers, and end-users) are offered the 
same degree of nominal sales support, such as immediate delivery and 
the opportunity to either purchase merchandise out of inventory, or 
have it made to order. We, therefore, determined that Yieh Hsing sells 
to one level of trade in the home market.
    Yieh Hsing contended that EP sales were at a different level of 
trade than its home market sales. Each of Yieh Hsing's EP sales were 
made to one trading company. That trading company purchased large 
quantities of pipe on a made-to-order basis. The long lead-times 
associated with shipments from Taiwan to the U.S. make it impossible 
for the trading company to avail itself of the immediate delivery and 
inventory-maintenance services that Yieh Hsing provided to some of its 
home market customers. Based on this distinction, Yieh Hsing argued 
that EP sales were at a different level of trade than its home market 
sales.
    While Yieh Hsing was able to provide a greater degree of inventory 
maintenance services on its home market sales than on its EP sales, we 
disagree with Yieh Hsing's contention that EP sales were at a different 
level of trade than were home market sales. The levels of customer 
assistance and sales support provided by Yieh Hsing on its home market 
and U.S. sales were not significantly different. Moreover, Yieh

[[Page 31072]]

Hsing conducted made-to-order sales in both the home market and the 
United States. The fact that Yieh Hsing had a greater concentration of 
made-to-order sales in the United States than in the home market does 
not distinguish its EP sales as being at a separate level of trade than 
its home market sales. Accordingly, for purposes of this review, we 
determined that EP sales were at the same level of trade as Yieh 
Hsing's home market sales.

Sales Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes in the United States were made at less than NV, we 
compared USP to the NV, as described in the ``United States Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777(A) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV 
and compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that a margin of 0.67 percent exists for 
Yieh Hsing for the period June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996.
    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. The Department will publish the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, 
within 120 days after the publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the inability to 
link sales with specific entries prevents calculation of duties on an 
entry-by-entry basis, we have calculated an importer specific ad 
valorem duty assessment rate for the merchandise based on the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales made during the POR to the total customs value of the sales used 
to calculate these duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all 
entries of that particular importer made during the POR. (This is 
equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which 
are calculated by taking the difference between NV and U.S. Price, by 
the total U.S. value of the sales compared, and adjusting the result by 
the average difference between U.S. price and customs value for all 
merchandise examined during the POR.) The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to Customs. The final results of 
this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties 
on entries of merchandise covered by the determination and for future 
deposits of estimated duties.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews 
for all shipments of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and 
tubes from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the publication date of the final results of these 
administrative reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash deposit rate for reviewed firms will be the rate 
established in the final results of administrative review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within 
the meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, in which case the cash deposit rate will 
be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not 
covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will 
continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these reviews, 
or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or the 
original fair value investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 9.7%, 
the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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.

    Dated: June 8, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-14874 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M