[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64559-64564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32063]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-809]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the 
Republic of Korea.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel 
pipe from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is November 1, 
1995 through October 31, 1996. This review covers imports of pipe from 
four producers/exporters.
    We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have 
been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the U.S. price and 
normal value.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Marian Wells, or 
Rosa Jeong, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4087, 482-6309, and 482-
1278 respectively.

The 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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations refer to the regulations, codified at 19 CFR 
part 353, April 1997.

Background

    Since the publication of Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results, Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, 
on July 15, 1997 (62 FR 37865), the following has occurred.
    On July 25, 1997, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO) and Union Steel 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union) asking about issues of affiliation. The 
companies responded to the affiliation questions on August 6, 1997. We 
notified Union and KISCO in an October 22, 1997, letter that their 
responses should be consolidated into one response (see ``Collapsing 
Union and KISCO'' in this notice). The Department received a 
consolidated response from these companies on November 17, 1997.
    On October 30, 1997, we requested respondents to resubmit their 
data using purchase order/contract date, as opposed to invoice date, as 
date of sale for U.S. transactions. We received partially updated sales 
databases with

[[Page 64560]]

the new date of sale from SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and Shinho 
Steel Co., Ltd. (Shinho) on November 17, 1997. (In the case of Hyundai 
Pipe Co. Ltd. (Hyundai), this information had been previously requested 
and supplied to the Department.) Union/KISCO's collapsed submission 
received on November 17, 1997 did not include the change in the date of 
sale.
    Supplemental questionnaires were sent to respondents in November 
1997. Responses to our supplemental questionnaires regarding level of 
trade (LOT) were received by November 13, 1997. Additional supplemental 
questionnaires responses from all respondents are due December 3, 1997.
    We intend to issue the final results of this review not later than 
120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm 
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface 
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, 
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes 
are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and 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 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm 
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is 
also included in this order.
    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, mechanical tubing, pipe 
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished 
conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative 
Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and 
Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L 
line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe 
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe 
specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined 
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 
pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 
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 HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Collapsing KISCO and Union

    On May 22 and June 30, 1997, the petitioners, Allied Tube and 
Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular Division-Armco, Inc. and Wheatland 
Tube Company, argued that because of the strong possibility of 
manipulation of prices and production, the Department should treat 
Union and KISCO as a single, collapsed entity and calculate a single 
combined antidumping duty rate for both companies. In determining 
whether companies should be collapsed, the Department makes three 
inquiries. First, the Department examines whether the companies in 
question are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 771(33) of 
the Act. Second, the Department examines whether the companies in 
question have similar production facilities, such that retooling would 
not be required to shift production from one company to another. Third, 
the Department examines whether there exists other evidence indicating 
a significant potential for the manipulation of prices or production. 
The types of factors the Department considers in determining whether 
there is a significant potential for the manipulation of prices or 
production include: (1) The level of common ownership; (2) the 
existence of interlocking officers or directors (e.g., whether 
managerial employees or board members of one company sit on the board 
of directors of the other affiliated parties); and (3) the existence of 
intertwined operations. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from Korea, 60 FR 65284 (December 19, 1995) (Korean Steel).
    In the first administrative review of this order, the petitioners 
also argued that Union and KISCO should be collapsed, and the 
Department agreed. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574 
(October 27, 1997) (Pipe First Review). In the present proceeding, we 
again closely analyzed the relevant factors in light of the information 
on record of the present review. We determined that the factors that 
led to the collapsing decision in the first review continue to exist in 
the present review. Therefore, we have collapsed Union and KISCO and 
calculated a single antidumping duty rate for the collapsed entity.

Date of Sale

    When determining which sales fall within the period of review 
(POR), respondents used either invoice date, tax invoice date, or 
shipment date (collectively referred to hereafter as ``invoice date'') 
as the date of sale. Most respondents claimed that the invoice date is 
what is maintained in their corporate records and that use of invoice 
date is in accordance with the Department's stated practice (see 
Memorandum from Susan G. Esserman ``Date of Sale Methodology Under New 
Regulations,'' March 29, 1996).
    Based on our review of the responses, we determined invoice date 
should not be used as the date of sale for U.S. transactions. (For home 
market transactions, we find that invoice date reasonably approximates 
the date on which the material terms of sale are made and have used 
this as our date of sale.) While each company has a slightly different 
U.S. sales process, consistent throughout the responses is the notion 
that price and quantity are established, then the factory produces the 
subject merchandise, and finally, after a significant period of time, 
the product is shipped and an invoice is issued. Based on this 
understanding of the companies' U.S. sales process, we instructed 
respondents to report as the date of sale the date that will reasonably 
approximate the time at which the material terms of sale are set (see, 
Memorandum for Richard W. Moreland, dated October 30, 1997).
    The above-mentioned change in the U.S. date of sale necessitated 
changes to the U.S. sales listings of respondents to correct the date 
of sale. As a consequence of the change in the U.S. date of sale, home 
market sales listings also have to be revised to include sales of 
identical and similar merchandise that are contemporaneous with U.S. 
sales. Due to the late date on which we informed respondents of the 
need to change the U.S. date of sale, all respondents were not able to 
modify fully their U.S. and home market sales listings in time for 
these preliminary results of review. Therefore, we have used the most 
current sales listings available to the Department. Hyundai, SeAH, and 
Shinho partially revised

[[Page 64561]]

their U.S. sales listings by changing the date of sale for previously 
reported transactions. Union/KISCO was unable to provide a collapsed 
sales listing reflecting the change in the U.S. date of sale in time 
for these preliminary results. As a result, we are using invoice date 
as the date of Union/KISCO's U.S. sales. Furthermore, for all 
respondents, we have made comparisons to constructed value (CV) for 
U.S. sales that do not have contemporaneous home market sales matches.

Resales of Subject Merchandise

    Some companies purchase subject merchandise from unaffiliated 
manufacturers and then further manufacture it into products also within 
the scope of this review. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have included sales of all such further-manufactured subject 
merchandise in our analysis.

SeAH

    During the POR, SeAH purchased a small quantity of subject 
merchandise from an unaffiliated producer, and subsequently resold the 
merchandise in the United States. According to SeAH, the unaffiliated 
producer was aware of the ultimate destination of the merchandise at 
the time of sale to SeAH (see SeAH response of March 24, 1997, p. 33).
    In their June 24, 1997 submission, petitioners argue that products 
purchased from the unaffiliated producer and resold by SeAH should be 
included in SeAH's U.S. and home market sales listings. To support this 
argument, petitioners cite to Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from 
Japan, 61 FR 67308 (December 20, 1997) (Cement and Clinker).
    Regarding U.S. sales, the Department examines the first party in 
the distribution chain selling with the knowledge that the merchandise 
is destined for the U.S. See 19 CFR 353.41(b), Certain Pasta from 
Italy: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postpone of Final Determination, 60 FR 1344, 1348-1349 
(January 19, 1996) (Pasta from Italy). In SeAH's case, the unaffiliated 
producer knew at the time of the sale to SeAH that the merchandise was 
destined for the United States. Therefore, the appropriate export price 
for that merchandise would be the price between the unaffiliated 
producer and SeAH (see Pasta from Italy). Moreover, the unaffiliated 
producer would be the appropriate party to be reviewed with respect to 
these resales.
    The case cited by petitioners dealt with home market sales. 
Contrary to petitioners' assertions, the Department excluded all 
resales of merchandise purchased from an unaffiliated producer from its 
foreign market value (FMV) calculation in Cement and Clinker to the 
extent that they were separately identifiable. It was only in those 
cases where resales were inextricably commingled with the respondent's 
own product sales and where the inclusion of these resales did not 
distort the FMV calculation that the Department allowed them to be 
included among the respondent's home market sales. Therefore, this 
precedent does not provide a basis for including resales of this 
merchandise in the home market in our calculation of normal value (NV). 
Consequently, products purchased from this unaffiliated producer and 
resold into the U.S. market have not been included among SeAH's U.S. or 
home market sales listings.

Product Comparisons

    We calculated monthly, weighted-average, NVs. Where possible, we 
compared U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise in Korea. When 
identical merchandise was not sold during the relevant contemporaneous 
period, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign 
like product (see section 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act).

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we used export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) 
of the Act, as appropriate.
    In accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we 
calculated an EP where the merchandise was sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and 
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. In 
accordance with sections 772(b), (c) and (d) of the Act, we calculated 
a CEP for sales made by affiliated U.S. resellers that took place after 
importation into the United States. EP and CEP were based on the packed 
C&F, delivered, CIF duty paid, or ex-dock duty paid price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
As appropriate, we made deductions for discounts and rebates, including 
early payment discounts. We added to U.S. price amounts for duty 
drawback, pursuant to section 772 (c)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
that such rebates were not excessive (see Pipe First Review). We also 
made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, foreign 
brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs 
brokerage, U.S. customs duties, harbor maintenance fees, merchandise 
processing fees, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to 
warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer).
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from 
CEP those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including commissions, direct selling 
expenses (credit costs, introduction allowances, and warranty 
expenses), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses, 
where applicable. Credit expenses were offset by interest revenues, 
where applicable. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

    We compared the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales 
and determined that the quantity of each company's sales in its home 
market was more than five percent of the quantity of its sales to the 
U.S. market. Consequently, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 
we based NV on home market sales.
    Certain respondents reported sales in the home market of 
``overrun'' merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater quantity of pipe than 
the customer ordered due to overproduction). Respondents claimed that 
we should disregard ``overrun'' sales in the home market as outside the 
ordinary course of trade.
    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be 
based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. 
Ordinary course of trade is defined in section 771(15) of the Act. We 
analyzed the following criteria to determine whether ``overrun'' sales 
differ from other sales of commercial pipe: (1) ratio of overrun sales 
to total home market sales; (2) number of overrun customers compared to 
total number of home market customers; (3) average price of an overrun 
sale compared to average price of a commercial sale; (4) profitability 
of overrun sales compared to profitability of commercial sales; and (5) 
average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of 
a commercial sale. Based on our analysis of these criteria and on an 
analysis of the terms of sale, we found certain overrun sales to be 
outside the ordinary course of trade. This analysis is consistent with

[[Page 64562]]

the analysis sustained by the Court of International Trade in Laclede 
Steel Co. V. United States, Slip. Op. 94-114 (1995).
    Hyundai and SeAH had sales in the home market to affiliated 
customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we 
compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated 
customers, net of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling 
expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to the affiliated 
party was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the 
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's length and included those sales in our 
calculation of NV pursuant to 19 CFR 353.45(a).
    We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) and B(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
movement expenses, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, for 
inland freight. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in 
cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the 
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as 
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR. 353.56. For 
comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses incurred on home market sales (credit expenses as offset by 
interest revenue) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit 
costs, introduction allowances, and warranty expenses). For comparisons 
to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred on home market sales. Since no respondent had U.S. direct 
selling expenses other than those deducted from the starting price in 
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, we made no 
additions to normal value in making COS adjustments. We also made 
adjustments, where applicable, for indirect selling expenses incurred 
on home market sales to offset commissions in EP calculations; 
specifically, we deducted from normal value the lesser of (1) the 
amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or 
(2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market 
sales for a particular product, including inventory carrying costs in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA at 829-
831, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based 
on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the Department is 
unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the comparison 
market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the 
U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market.
    We determine that sales are made at different levels of trade if 
they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). 
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not 
sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the 
stages of marketing. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and 
Tubes from India; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 23760, 23761(May 1, 1997). See, also, 19 
CFR 351.412 (62 FR 27296, 27414-27415 (May 19, 1997)) for a concise 
description of this practice.
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from each respondent regarding the marketing stage involved 
in the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of 
the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of 
distribution. (For further information on the LOT analysis for each 
company, see the Memorandum from the team to S. Kuhbach of December 1, 
1997.) Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at 
827, in identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales we 
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if claimed 
levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the 
seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of 
trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
    When CEP sales have been made in the United States, in SeAH's case, 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset'' may 
be made provided that two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a 
LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of 
the CEP; and (2) the data available do not permit a determination that 
there is a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at 
different levels of trade in the comparison market.

Shinho, Hyundai, and KISCO/Union

    Based on an analysis of the selling functions, class of customers, 
and level of selling expenses, we found that sales made by Shinho, 
Hyundai and KISCO/Union were at a single stage in the marketing process 
in both the home market and the United States (i.e., one LOT exists in 
home market and one LOT exists in the United States with respect to 
each company). Moreover, because the stages of marketing in the two 
markets were not substantially dissimilar, we have preliminarily found 
that sales in both markets are at the same LOT and consequently no LOT 
adjustment is warranted.

SeAH

    With respect to SeAH's EP sales, we found that sales were made at a 
single stage in the marketing process in both the home market and the 
United States, and that these stages of marketing were not 
substantially dissimilar. Therefore, we have preliminarily found that 
SeAH's EP and home market sales are at the same LOT and that no LOT 
adjustment is needed.
    SeAH asserts that its home market sales are at a more advanced LOT 
than its CEP sales because the CEP LOT does not include inventory 
maintenance or expenses associated with arranging for freight. We have 
preliminarily determined that these differences in selling activities 
are not substantial and, therefore, that SeAH's home market and CEP 
sales are made at the same marketing stages. Consequently, we 
preliminarily determine that SeAH's home market and U.S. sales are at 
the same LOT and no CEP offset is warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on timely allegations filed by the petitioners, the 
Department initiated a cost of production (COP) investigation of Union/
KISCO to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP. See 
Memoranda from Craig Matney to Office Director Susan Kuhbach, dated 
June 24 and June 25, 1997.
    Because we disregarded sales below the COP in the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation for Hyundai, SeAH, and Shinho (see Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea: Notice of Final Court Decision 
and Amended Final Determination, 60 FR 55833, November 3, 1995 (Pipe 
LTFV)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of 
the foreign product under consideration for the determination of NV in 
this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by

[[Page 64563]]

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of these 
companies' home market.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of 
materials, fabrication and general expenses, and packing costs.

B. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a 
respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below 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 made at prices below the COP, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because such sales were found to be made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities'' in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Moreover, based on 
comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we 
determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices 
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where all 
contemporaneous sales of a specific product were made at prices below 
the COP, we calculated NV based on CV, in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act.
    We found that all respondents made home market sales at below COP 
prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. 
Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit for the 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore 
excluded these sales from our analysis in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

Constructed Value

    Where NV could not be based on home market sales either because (1) 
there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product or (2) all 
contemporaneous sales of the comparison product failed the COP test, we 
compared U.S. prices to CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the 
Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials of the 
product sold in the United States, plus amounts for general expenses, 
home market profit and U.S. packing costs. We calculated each 
respondent's CV based on the methodology described in the ``Calculation 
of COP'' section of this notice, above. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual amounts incurred and realized by 
respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the 
foreign country to calculate general expenses and home market profit.
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in 
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56 for COS 
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made 
COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home 
market sales. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for indirect 
selling expenses incurred on home market sales to offset U.S. 
commissions in EP comparisons; specifically, we deducted from normal 
value the lesser of: (1) The amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale 
for a particular product, or (2) the amount of indirect selling 
expenses incurred on the home market sales for a particular product.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act. Currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a 
daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars 
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is our practice to 
find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs 
from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. See Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 61 FR 35188, 35192 (July 5, 1996). The 
benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the 
past 40 business days.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period November 1, 1995, through 
October 31, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai.....................................................        4.10
Union/KISCO.................................................        2.36
Shinho......................................................        3.34
SeAH........................................................        7.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may also 
request a hearing within ten days of publication. If requested, a 
hearing will be held March 2, 1998. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs pertaining to non-verification issues by January 12, 1998. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than January 20, 1998. Briefs pertaining 
to verification issues must be submitted by February 26, 1998, with 
rebuttal briefs not later than March 5, 1998. The Department will issue 
a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
briefs, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary 
results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with the methodology in Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea (62 FR 
55574, October 27, 1997), we calculated exporter/importer-specific 
assessment values by dividing the total dumping duties due for each 
importer by the number of tons used to determine the duties due. We 
will direct Customs to assess the resulting per-ton dollar amount 
against each ton of the merchandise entered by these importers' during 
the review period.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of steel wire rope from Korea 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)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this 
administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required for 
those companies whose weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less 
than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or 
exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV 
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to 
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or

[[Page 64564]]

final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an 
individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, the previous review, or the original 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 reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 4.80 percent, 
the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation. See Pipe LTFV.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility 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 
sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: December 1, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-32063 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P