[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16974-16979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9091]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: 
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: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Thailand

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 
(``Saha Thai'') and its affiliated exporter, S.A.F. Pipe Export Co., 
Ltd., (``SAF''), and two importers, Ferro Union Inc. (``Ferro Union''), 
and ASOMA Corp. (``ASOMA''), the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Thailand. This review covers Saha Thai/SAF, a manufacturer/exporter of 
the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review 
(POR) is March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that the respondent sold subject 
merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties based on the differences 
between the export price and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Totaro or Dorothy Woster, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group III, Office VII, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1374 or (202) 482-3362, respectively.

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 (hereinafter, 
``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In 
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the old regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 353 (1997)), as 
amended by the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on 
May 11, 1995, (60 FR 25130). Although the Department's new regulations, 
codified at 19 CFR 351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997) (``Final 
Regulations''), do not govern this administrative review, citations to 
those regulations are provided, where appropriate, as a statement of 
current departmental practice.


[[Page 16975]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 7, 1997, the Department published a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order 
covering the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997 (62 FR 
10521). A timely request for an administrative review of the 
antidumping order with respect to sales by Saha Thai/SAF during the POR 
was filed jointly by Saha Thai, SAF, Ferro Union, and ASOMA. The 
Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on April 24, 1997 (62 FR 19988). On May 14, 1997, 
certain domestic producers of standard pipe products entered an 
appearance in this review: Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Sawhill 
Tubular Division--Armco, Inc., Wheatland Tube Company, and Laclede 
Steel Company, (``petitioners'' or ``domestic interested parties'').
    Because the Department determined that it was not practicable to 
complete this review within statutory time limits, on November 19, 
1997, we published in the Federal Register our notice of extension of 
time limits for this review (62 FR 61802). As a result, we extended the 
deadline for these preliminary results. The deadline for the final 
results will continue to be 120 days after publication of these 
preliminary results.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are certain 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject 
merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not 
exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in 
the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural tubing,'' are 
hereinafter designated as ``pipe and tube.'' The merchandise is 
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 
7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of the order is dispositive. This review covers sales by 
Saha Thai/SAF during the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 
1997.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales 
information provided by the respondent Saha Thai from March 2-6, 1997, 
using standard verification procedures, including examination of 
relevant financial records and analysis of original documentation used 
by Saha Thai to prepare responses to requests for information from the 
Department. We also verified sales and level of trade issues at one of 
Saha Thai's home market resellers which the Department determined was 
an affiliate of Saha Thai. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public version of the verification report (Memorandum to Roland L. 
MacDonald) from John B. Totaro and Dorothy A. Woster, March 19, 1998 
(``Saha Thai Verification Report'').

Affiliation and Collapsing Determinations

    Pursuant to section 771 (33) of the Act, the Department considers 
the following persons or parties to be affiliated:
    A. Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by 
the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.
    B. Any officer or director of an organization and such 
organization.
    C. Partners.
    D. Employer and employee.
    E. Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or 
holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding 
voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization.
    F. Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person.
    G. Any person who controls any other person and such other person. 
For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.
    It is the Department's practice to collapse affiliated producers 
for purposes of calculating a margin when the facts demonstrate that 
the relationship is such that there is a strong possibility of 
manipulation of prices and production decisions that would result in 
circumvention of the antidumping order. Although the Department's new 
regulations published May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27410) do not govern this 
review, they do codify the Department's current practice. Current 
practice calls for the Department to treat two or more affiliated 
producers as a single entity (i.e., ``collapse'' the firms) for 
purposes of calculating a dumping margin when the following three 
criteria are met:
    1. The producers must be affiliated;
    2. The producers must have production facilities for similar or 
identical products that would not require substantial retooling of 
either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and
    3. There must be a significant potential for the manipulation of 
price or production. Final Regulations, 62 FR 27296, 27410.
    In identifying whether there is a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production, the factors the Department 
considers include: the level of common ownership; whether managerial 
employees or board members of one of the affiliated producers sit on 
the board(s) of directors of the other affiliated parties; and whether 
operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales 
information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the 
sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between 
the affiliated producers.

A. Producers of Subject Merchandise

    The Department finds that Saha Thai is affiliated under section 
771(33)(F) of the Act with two Thai producers of the subject 
merchandise that are not respondents in this review: Thai Tube Co., 
Ltd. (``Thai Tube''), and Thai Hong Steel Pipe Import Export Co., Ltd. 
(``Thai Hong''). This affiliation is established through common control 
by the Lamatipanont family. For a more detailed discussion of the 
Department's analysis, see Memorandum to the File, March 31, 1998 
(``Producers Affiliation-Collapsing Memorandum.'')
    Further, based on public information on the record of this review, 
the Department determines that Thai Tube and Thai Hong are both 
producers of the subject merchandise, and therefore have production 
facilities for identical products to those produced by Saha Thai. We, 
therefore, conclude that Thai Tube and Thai Hong could restructure 
their production priorities to produce the subject merchandise with 
little or no retooling of their facilities.
    In considering the ``significant potential'' factors described 
above, the Department finds, based on the evidence on the record, that 
there is substantial involvement in the ownership and management of 
these three producers by members of the Lamatipanont family. However, 
because there is no evidence of intertwined

[[Page 16976]]

operations, we preliminarily find that a significant potential for 
manipulation of price or production does not exist between Saha Thai 
and Thai Tube or between Saha Thai and Thai Hong. Therefore, we have 
not collapsed these three entities for the purpose of calculating a 
dumping margin. However, we will continue to examine this issue for the 
final results. See Producers Affiliation-Collapsing Memorandum.

B. Siam Steel Group

    The Department finds that the member companies of the Siam Steel 
Group are affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Act because they 
are owned and managed by the Karuchit/Kunanantakul family. In 
discussing the scope of the Department's analysis of affiliation 
through ``control'' under section 771(33) of the Act, the Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
states that ``[a] company may be in a position to exercise restraint or 
direction, for example, through corporate or family groupings * * *'' 
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol.1, 103d Cong. 
(1994) (``SAA'') at 838. The facts on the record in this review 
demonstrate that the Siam Steel Group, a grouping of Thai entities 
(including Saha Thai) which produce, sell and provide services related 
to various steel products under common control by the Karuchit/
Kunanantakul family, is the type of ``corporate or family grouping'' 
envisioned in the SAA and the Final Regulations. Based on the facts in 
this case, we find that Saha Thai is affiliated under section 
771(33)(F) with each and every member of the Siam Steel Group. See 
Memorandum to the File, March 31, 1998 (``SSG Affiliation-Collapsing 
Memorandum.'')
    ``Company E'' is a producer of PVC-lined steel pipes and a member 
of the Siam Steel Group. Therefore, we considered whether Saha Thai and 
Company E should be collapsed as a single entity for purposes of 
calculating an antidumping margin. Company E produces standard welded 
steel BS-medium grade pipe as an intermediate product to finished PVC-
lined pipe. In doing so, Company E uses a production process similar to 
that used by Saha Thai to manufacture the subject merchandise with 
additional steps to yield PVC-lined pipe. Saha Thai stated that Company 
E subjects the intermediate, unlined steel pipe to substantial 
additional manufacturing operations and associated costs to transform 
this the intermediate product to PVC-lined pipe. In consideration of 
these facts, we preliminarily do not conclude that it would not require 
substantial retooling of Company E's facilities to shift production of 
the subject merchandise from Saha Thai to Company E. Evidence on the 
record indicates that executing this type of shift would require 
extensive and expensive infrastructure changes in Company E. Therefore, 
the second collapsing criterion of section 351.401(f) of the Final 
Regulations is not satisfied. We will continue to examine this issue 
for the final results.
    Because we determine that the second collapsing criterion is not 
satisfied, it is not necessary to consider the third criterion in the 
collapsing analysis--identifying the potential for manipulation of 
price or production. See Certain Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
42496, 42497 (August 7, 1997). For these reasons, we determine that it 
is not appropriate to treat the affiliated companies Saha Thai and 
Company E as a single entity for the purposes of calculating an 
antidumping margin. See SSG Affiliation-Collapsing Memorandum.

C. Resellers

    The record evidence demonstrates that the Sae Haeng/Ratanasirivilai 
family controls both Saha Thai and Company A, the Lamatipanont family 
controls both Saha Thai and Company B, and the Ampapankit family 
controls both Saha Thai and Company C. The record therefore supports 
our finding of affiliation under section 771(33)(F) of the Act between 
Saha Thai and these three resellers. See Memorandum to the File, March 
31, 1998 (``Resellers Affiliation Memorandum'').

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of steel pipes and tubes from Thailand 
to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we 
compared the United States price (USP) to the NV for Saha Thai as 
specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we calculated 
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual 
U.S. transactions.

United States Price

    We based USP on EP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 
when the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States prior to importation. Saha Thai sells to the United 
States through its affiliated export company SAF. We classified all 
Saha Thai sales to United States customers as EP sales because we did 
not find Saha Thai/SAF to be affiliated with its U.S. distributors. 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 56515, 56517 
(November 1, 1996). In this review, the record evidence presents no 
factual circumstances warranting a change from this prior analysis. 
Accordingly, we calculated the EP based on the price from Saha Thai/ 
SAF to unaffiliated parties in the United States where these sales were 
made prior to importation into the United States, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act. Where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting 
price for ocean freight to the U.S. port, foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland insurance, and bill of 
lading charge. We also added duty drawback rebated to Saha Thai upon 
exportation of subject merchandise made from imported coil in 
accordance with section 771(c)(1) of the Act.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we 
compared the volume of Saha Thai's home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this 
comparison, we determined that the aggregate volume of Saha Thai's home 
market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent 
of the aggregate volume of Saha Thai's U.S. sales. Thus, we determined 
that Saha Thai had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, 
we based NV on home market sales.
    As discussed above, we found Saha Thai and its three home market 
resellers affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Based on this 
finding, we applied the standard arm's length test to Saha Thai's sales 
to these affiliated resellers. Because these sales were not made at 
arm's length prices, we required Saha Thai to report the downstream 
sales made in the home market by the affiliated resellers. These sales 
were included in our home market normal value calculation. See 
Memorandum to File from Dorothy Woster, March 31, 1998 (``Analysis 
Memorandum'').
    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, there were reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Saha Thai had made home market sales 
at prices below its COP in this review because the

[[Page 16977]]

Department had disregarded sales below the COP in the 1994-1995 
administrative review (i.e., the most recently completed review at the 
time we issued our antidumping questionnaire). As a result, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Saha Thai 
made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP. We 
calculated the COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A and 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We used respondent's reported COP amounts to compute weighted-
average COPs during the POR. We compared the COP figures to home market 
sales of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP 
to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts 
and credit notes.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the 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 the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined 
that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-
cost sales.
    On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir., 
1998). In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the 
Court discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as 
the basis for foreign market when the Department finds home market 
sales to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was 
not raised by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended 
the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to 
include sales disregarded as below cost. See Section 771(15) of the 
Act. Consequently, the Department has determined that it would be 
inappropriate to resort directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market 
sales, as the basis for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales 
of merchandise identical or most similar to that sold in the United 
States to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the 
Department will use sales of similar merchandise, if such sales exist. 
The Department will use CV as the basis for NV only when there are no 
above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, 
in this proceeding, when making comparisons in accordance with section 
771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market 
as described in the ``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, above, 
that were in the ordinary course of trade (i.e., sales that passed the 
cost test) for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons 
to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of 
trade of the identical or the most similar merchandise in the home 
market that were otherwise suitable for comparison, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product, based on 
the characteristics listed in Sections B and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire. We have implemented the Court's decision in this case, 
to the extent that the data on the record permitted.
    Where appropriate, we adjusted Saha Thai's home market sales for 
discounts, credit expenses, inland freight, inland insurance, and 
warehousing. We also adjusted the home market sales made by reseller 
Company B for credit notes. In addition, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Saha Thai's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, 
profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred 
and realized by Saha Thai 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 
average of the selling expenses reported for home market sales that 
survived the cost test, weighted by the total quantity of those sales. 
For actual profit, we first calculated the difference between the home 
market sales value and home market COP, and divided the difference by 
the home market COP. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP for 
each U.S. model to derive an actual profit.

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA, 
to the extent practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on 
sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the export 
price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP). The NV level of trade 
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when 
NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we 
derive selling, general and administrative expenses and profit. For EP, 
the U.S. level of trade is the level of the starting-price sale, which 
is usually from exporter to importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different level of trade, and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    For the U.S. market, Saha Thai reported only one level of trade for 
its EP sales. This single level of trade represents large volume sales 
to unaffiliated trading companies/distributors in the U.S. In the home 
market, Saha Thai claimed that sales were made at two levels of trade: 
(1) large volume home market sales made to unaffiliated trading 
companies and distributors (made at the same level of trade as U.S. 
sales), and (2) sales made by its affiliated resellers to retailers and 
end-users. Saha Thai claimed that the resellers' home market sales are 
at a more advanced level of trade than Saha Thai/SAF's U.S. and home 
market sales because the reseller sales require keeping varied 
inventory on hand, higher warehouse staffing levels, and additional 
delivery services and selling expenses.

[[Page 16978]]

    To determine whether sales in the home market occur at two 
different levels of trade, and therefore, whether a level of trade 
adjustment should be applied when U.S. sales are matched to sales by 
Saha Thai's resellers, we analyzed the selling expenses and functions 
performed by Saha Thai and its affiliated resellers. In comparing the 
two claimed home market levels of trade to each other, we note that 
both Saha Thai and the resellers performed the following selling 
functions: preparing merchandise for shipment, maintaining sales 
records, and pricing/ discounts/ rebates. The following selling 
functions are performed only by the resellers: maintaining inventory, 
collecting bills, extending credit, pre-sale warehousing, and providing 
delivery to the customer with its own fleet of trucks. The qualitative 
nature of these different selling functions is reflective of a more 
advanced marketing stage, viz-a-viz Saha Thai's sales to trading 
companies/distributors. Consistent with this finding, we note 
significant quantifiable difference in selling expenses (indirect 
selling expenses and presale warehousing expenses) reported by the 
resellers and Saha Thai. Thus, we determine that resellers' sales were 
made at a more advanced level of trade than Saha Thai's sales in the 
home market. Accordingly, where possible, we matched EP sales to home 
market sales made at the same level of trade, i.e. to home market sales 
made by Saha Thai.
    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 levels 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 difference 
in net prices to adjust NV when NV is based on a level of trade 
different from that of the export sale. If there is a pattern of no 
price differences, the difference in levels of trade does not have a 
price effect and, therefore, no adjustment is necessary. Because 
comparisons of home market net prices did not reveal a pattern of 
consistent price differences between Saha Thai's home market sales and 
the resellers' home market sales, no level of trade adjustment was 
granted.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See 
Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 
1996). Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange 
rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless 
the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's practice 
to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs 
from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as 
the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the benchmark 
rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
          Manufacturer/exporter                 Period        (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai/SAF...........................     3/1/96-2/28/97         1.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. 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 business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or other written 
comments from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 
days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be 
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. 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 comments, within 120 days from the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. We calculated importer-specific ad 
valorem duty assessment rates for the class or kind of 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 those duties. This rate will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries that particular importer made during the POR. 
(This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of the antidumping 
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory 
NV and statutory EP, by the total statutory EP value of the sales 
compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference between EP 
and customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR). Upon 
completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon the 
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for 
all shipments of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date, as provided for by Section 751(a)(2)(c) of 
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be 
that established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original LTFV 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; (4) the 
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 15.67 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by 
the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

[[Page 16979]]

    This notice serves as a preliminary 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.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: March 31, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-9091 Filed 4-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P