[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62758-62759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-489-501]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Dennis McClure, 
Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone (202) 482-0650 or (202) 482-3530, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

    On October 2, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube 
from Turkey (62 FR 51629). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 1993, 
through April 30, 1994.
    On October 16, 1997, the Borusan Group (Borusan) filed two timely 
clerical error allegations. On October 21, 1997, Allied Tube & Conduit 
and Wheatland Tube Company (petitioners) replied to the allegations 
made by Borusan, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.28. On October 24, 1997, 
Borusan filed unsolicited and untimely comments in response to the 
petitioners' October 21, 1997, submission. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 
353.31, we did not consider Borusan's October 24, 1997, submission in 
our analysis, since it was submitted after the October 16, 1997, 
deadline for submitting comments on ministerial error allegations.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain welded 
carbon steel pipe and tube products with an outside diameter of 0.375 
inch or more but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness. 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. These products, 
commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe and tube, are 
produced to various American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
specifications, most notably A-120, A-53, or A-135.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Allegations of Clerical Errors

Allegation 1: Inclusion of Inventory Carrying Costs in Constructed 
Value (CV)

    Borusan alleges that because Borusan's sales to the United States 
were purchase price (PP) sales the Department should not have included 
inventory carrying costs in the calculation of CV.
    The petitioners argue that Borusan's allegation is methodological, 
not ministerial, in nature. The petitioners cite to Policy Bulletin 
94.2, ``Treatment of Inventory Carrying Costs in Constructed Value'' 
(March 25, 1994).
    DOC Position: We do not find this issue to be ministerial in 
nature, because it is a substantive argument for a new methodology. 
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. United States, No. 97-2, Slip Op. at 20 
(CIT January 8, 1997). Accordingly, we have not considered this issue 
because it is outside the scope of permissible corrections under 19 
C.F.R. 353.28(d). Id. For more discussion, see Memorandum from the Team 
to Richard W. Moreland, dated November 18, 1997 (Analysis Memorandum).

Allegation 2: Calculation of Weighted-Average Packing Costs

    Borusan alleges that the Department should have used production 
quantities, instead of sales quantities, to weight-average the indexed 
packing costs used in calculating cost of production and foreign market 
value.
    The petitioners respond that the Department's use of sales 
quantities does not appear to be a ministerial error, noting that the 
use of sales quantity is reasonable because packing costs are largely 
related to the shipment, not production, of merchandise.
    DOC Position: In the final results of the 1994-95 administrative 
review of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey, we 
indexed all costs, including packing expenses, using production 
quantities instead of sales quantities. See SAS programs used in the 
Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 62 FR 
27013 (May 16, 1997). Therefore, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 
353.28(c), we are amending the final results of this administrative 
review to correct this ministerial error. For more discussion, see 
Analysis Memorandum.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Upon correction of the ministerial error regarding packing costs, 
we have determined that the following margin for Borusan exists for the 
period indicated below:

[[Page 62759]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter                Time period      percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borusan....................................     5/1/93-4/30/94      3.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Borusan, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 2.57 
percent, the rate effective since May 16, 1997, which was published in 
the Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 62 FR 
27013 (May 16, 1997).
    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. If the exporter is not a firm covered in this or a prior 
review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise. If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 
covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 
14.74 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice is a final 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 notice also reminds parties subject to administrative 
protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or 
destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to comply is a violation of 
the APO.
    This 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 353.28.

    Dated: November 19, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-30958 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P