[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2200-2202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-801]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-809]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On October 27, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the 
final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of 
Korea covering the period of review from April 28, 1992, through 
October 31, 1993. Based on the correction of certain ministerial errors 
made in the final results, we are publishing this amendment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Panfeld, Mark Ross, Thomas 
Schauer, or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions in 
effect as of December 31, 1994. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Commerce Department's regulations are 
to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

    On October 27, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the 
Republic of Korea (62 FR 55574). The review covered seven 
manufacturers/exporters and the period April 28, 1992, through October 
31, 1993. After publication of our final results, we received timely 
allegations from petitioners and respondents that we had made 
ministerial errors in calculating the final results. We corrected our

[[Page 2201]]

calculations, where we agree that we made ministerial errors, in 
accordance with section 751(f) of the Tariff Act.

Analysis of Ministerial-Error Allegations Received from Interested 
Parties

    Comment 1: Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (PSP), alleges that the 
Department made a ministerial error in calculating the interest expense 
factor used to derive the per-unit interest expenses used in the 
calculation of the cost of production and constructed value. The 
company notes that in the 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, 55584 (October 27, 1997) (Final Results), the Department stated 
that ``for the final results, we have recalculated the G&A expense and 
interest expense factors using the methodology we required in our 
November 8, 1996, supplemental questionnaire.'' PSP argues, however, 
that the methodology employed to calculate the interest expense factor 
in the final results is different from the methodology required by the 
November 8, 1996, supplemental questionnaire. PSP asserts that as a 
result of this ministerial error the Department overstated the interest 
expense factor and, consequently, overstated the dumping margin.
    Department's Position: We agree with PSP that a ministerial error 
occurred in our calculation of the interest expense factor. It was our 
intention to calculate PSP's interest expense factor using the 
methodology we requested in the November 8, 1996, supplemental 
questionnaire. Specifically, we intended that the expenses in the 
numerator of the factor calculation include a portion of the 
affiliates' interest expense amounts determined by applying the ratio 
of resales (purchases from PSP) of all products (both subject and non-
subject) by the affiliates over total sales to the calculated interest 
expense as shown on the affiliates' financial statements. We have 
applied this methodology for the amended final results.
    Comment 2: Petitioners allege that, from the Department's 
discussion of duty drawback in the Final Results at 55577, the 
Department clearly intended to limit the duty-drawback adjustment to no 
more than the duties paid on the coil included in the pipe exported to 
the United States. Petitioners contend, however, that under certain 
conditions the Department's computer programming language will not 
accomplish this goal in its calculations. Petitioners provide revised 
programming instructions that they suggest will correct the problem.
    Respondents agree with petitioners' allegation but contend that a 
correction is unnecessary because it will not affect the margins.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners' ministerial-error 
allegation and have corrected the problem for those respondents that 
reported that they received duty drawback under the fixed-rate 
provision, i.e., Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., 
and PSP. In the final results, where respondents reported that they 
received duty drawback under the fixed-rate provision, we adjusted the 
drawback claim to reflect the amount of duty drawback actually paid by 
multiplying the reported duty drawback by the factor converting 
theoretical weight to actual weight. However, due to an error in our 
programming instructions, under certain conditions, i.e., where the 
conversion factor is greater than 1, our adjustment to the drawback 
claim did not result in a value that reflected the amount of duty 
drawback actually paid. To correct this problem, we altered the 
programming language so that duty drawback on each sale is only 
multiplied by the conversion factor when the conversion factor is less 
than one.
    Comment 3: Petitioners contend that, in collapsing Korea Iron & 
Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO), and Union Steel Co., Ltd. (Union), the 
Department erred in its application of the test for sales below the 
cost of production. Petitioners contend that only the sales by Union 
were subject to a below-cost examination. However, petitioners assert 
that, due to ministerial errors, the Department actually examined sales 
by both companies for below-cost transactions. Petitioners provide 
programming instructions to correct the alleged ministerial error.
    Respondents contend that petitioners' ministerial-error allegation 
is incorrect because the programming language indicates that KISCO's 
sales are excluded from the below-cost-of-production examination. 
Respondents further contend that the change petitioners request will 
not affect the margin.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that a ministerial 
error occurred in our application of the test for sales below the cost 
of production. As noted in the Final Results at 55588, in calculating a 
single weighted-average margin for KISCO and Union, we did not intend 
to subject KISCO's home market sales to a below-cost-of-production 
examination. We have corrected the ministerial error for the amended 
final results.
    Comment 4: Petitioners contend that the Department made a 
ministerial error in the calculation of assessment values for Korea 
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Petitioners assert that this error results in the 
calculation of separate assessment values for purchase price and 
exporter's sales price transactions made through the same importer.
    Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., contends that the calculation of 
separate assessment values for different types of sales made through 
the same importer is not a ministerial error. The company further 
contends that in the case at hand the methodology employed does not 
affect the overall amount paid by the importer in question.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. For this case, we 
did not intend to calculate separate assessment values for purchase 
price and exporter's sales price transactions made through the same 
importer. For the amended final results, we have modified the 
assessment programming language so that only one per-unit value is 
calculated for each importer.

Amended Final Results of Review

    As a result of the amended margin calculations, the following 
percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period April 28, 
1992, through October 31, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                           Company                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd........................................     * 1.71
Korea Iron & Steel Co., Ltd./Union Steel Co., Ltd............       1.52
Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd....................................     * 3.15
Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd....................................      5.31 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rate did not change as a result of our corrections for           
  ministerial errors.                                                   

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Applying the 
procedures set forth in the Final Results at 55589, we will calculate, 
wherever possible, an exporter/importer-specific assessment value. In 
addition, we will direct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits 
of estimated antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The amended 
deposit requirements are effective for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the date of publication of this notice and shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

[[Page 2202]]

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 serves as a reminder to parties subject to an 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to 
sanction.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751 (a)(1) and (f) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) 
and 19 CFR 353.28.

    Dated: January 6, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-801 Filed 1-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P