[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13169-13174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6401]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-825]


Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from SeAH Steel Corporation 
(``SeAH''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
oil country tubular goods from Korea. This review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, 
SeAH, and the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997, which is the 
second period of review (``POR'').
    We have made a final determination that SeAH made sales below 
normal value (``NV''). We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the 
constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Campau, Steve Bezirganian, or 
Steven Presing, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

[[Page 13170]]

482-3964, -0162, or -0194, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are 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 19 CFR 
part 351 (1998).

Background

    On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 41057) the antidumping duty order on oil country 
tubular goods from Korea. On August 4, 1997, the Department published 
in the Federal Register (62 FR 41925) a notice indicating an 
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the 
period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997, and on August 29, 1997, 
SeAH requested an administrative review for its entries during that 
period. On September 25, 1997, in accordance with section 751 of the 
Act, we published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an 
administrative review of this order for the period August 1, 1996 
through July 31, 1997 (62 FR 50292).
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit of 365 days. On January 30, 1998, the Department 
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary 
results in the review to August 31, 1998. See Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 4624. On December 21, 1998, the Department extended the 
deadline for determination of the final results in this case to March 
8, 1999. See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, 63 
FR 70389.
    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this order is oil country tubular goods 
(``OCTG''), hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including 
only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or 
steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or 
not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API 
specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes 
and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or 
tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. 
The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item 
numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 
7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 
7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 
7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 
7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 
7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 
7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 
7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 
7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive of the scope of this review.

Verification

    We verified cost and sales information provided by SeAH, examining 
relevant accounting and financial records, production records, and 
original sales documentation. Our verification results are outlined in 
the verification report from Abdelali Elouaradia and Juanita H. Chen to 
The File, dated February 12, 1999 (``Verification Report'').

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. SeAH Steel Corporation, Ltd. (``respondent'') and 
Maverick Tube Corp., IPSCO Tubulars Inc., and Lone Star Steel Co. 
(``petitioners'') submitted case briefs on October 16, 1998. SeAH also 
submitted a rebuttal brief on October 23, 1998. None of the parties 
requested a public hearing.

Comment 1: Payment Date/Credit Expenses

    Respondent argues the Department incorrectly concluded that SeAH 
extended credit to one of its customers beyond the reported payment 
date of February 20, 1997 for several sales where SeAH had not received 
payment. Respondent also believes the Department incorrectly imputed a 
payment date other than the date on which payment for the involved 
sales was actually made. Respondent claims that payment was in fact 
made for the involved sales, but that such payment was misdirected to 
and misappropriated by an unrelated third party.
    For the involved sales, Panther Supply, Inc. (Panther), a sales 
division of State Pipe and Supply Co. (an affiliate of respondent), 
sold merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser. According to respondent, 
the unaffiliated purchaser accidentally directed payment for these 
sales to the wrong party. This other party then wrongfully 
misappropriated the payment intended for Panther. Panther sued to 
secure payment, which in turn led to a June 24, 1998 summary judgment 
order awarding full payment to Panther, plus interest beginning 
February 20, 1997.
    In its preliminary results, the Department did not take the court-
ordered payments into account in determining dates of payment. Instead, 
the Department set the payment date for these sales equal to the date 
of the last submission made by SeAH prior to determination of the 
preliminary results (August 19, 1998), and recalculated credit expense 
accordingly.
    According to respondent, the Department normally constructs imputed 
credit costs to represent credit that a seller extends to a customer 
for the time between shipment and payment. Respondent states that such 
costs are opportunity costs to the seller for not having possession of 
payment funds between the dates of shipment and actual payment. 
Respondent emphasizes that the basis for this theory rests on the 
concept that the seller incurs an opportunity cost because it 
voluntarily extends credit to the buyer until such time as payment is 
made.
    In this case, respondent argues, the Department was incorrect in 
assigning August 19, 1998 as payment date and in concluding that the 
seller was extending credit to one of its customers for two reasons. 
First, respondent argues that assigning August 19, 1998 was incorrect 
because a court had already recognized February 20, 1997 as the date of 
full payment. Second, respondent argues that because the court also 
awarded

[[Page 13171]]

SeAH interest revenue on the late payments from February 20, 1997 
forward, any opportunity costs that would arise from an extension of 
credit cease to exist.
    Finally, respondent argues that if the Department uses any date 
other than February 20, 1997 as payment date for the sales in question, 
the Department must then conform the period used for calculation of the 
imputed credit expense with a comparable period for calculating an 
interest income offset. To do so, respondent believes the Department 
must add an additional day--for each day beyond February 20, 1997 that 
the Department extends the imputed credit periods--for which Panther is 
entitled to receive interest income.
    Petitioners did not submit comments related to this issue.

Department's Position

    Contrary to SeAH's claim, the Department normally calculates credit 
expense based on the time between shipment and actual payment to the 
seller, regardless of the credit terms given to a particular customer. 
For example, Appendix I at 4 of the Department's September 16, 1997 
Questionnaire (``Questionnaire'') states that credit expense ``is the 
interest expense incurred (or interest revenue foregone) between 
shipment of merchandise to a customer and receipt of payment from the 
customer (emphasis added). Similarly, the Department asked SeAH to 
report interest revenue based on the per unit interest charges 
collected on each sale for late payment of the invoice (emphasis added) 
(see Questionnaire at C-23). In this case, while a court decision 
appears to indicate that State was entitled to receive payment and 
interest revenue, it did not in fact receive it. In a previous case 
involving unpaid U.S. sales, the Department clearly stated that the 
issue of concern for purposes of imputed credit was the receipt of 
payment: ``Prior to verification OAB had not indicated in its original 
questionnaire response or its subsequent supplemental responses that it 
had not yet received payment for certain of its U.S. sales'' (emphasis 
added). See Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden; Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 60 FR 3617, 3620 (January 18, 1995). 
This is also true for interest revenue. For example, in a recent case 
the Department ``made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses (offset by interest revenue actually received by the 
respondent)...'' (emphasis added). See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8915 (February 23, 1998). 
Furthermore, neither SeAH nor its U.S. affiliates appear to have had a 
practice of charging U.S. customers interest on late payments; in 
response to the aforementioned request that the respondent report 
collected interest revenue, the respondent indicated that ``{n}either 
SeAH nor State charged customers interest for late payment during the 
POR.'' See SeAH's November 12, 1997 Section C response at 31. 
Consequently, no adjustment for interest revenue is warranted.
    It is the Department's current practice to calculate imputed credit 
for unpaid sales based on the last day of verification. However, in 
this case use of the last day of verification, January 27, 1999, would 
be inappropriate for several reasons. First, in administrative reviews 
verifications are typically conducted prior to the issuance of the 
Department's preliminary results. However, in this case verification 
was conducted several months after the issuance of the preliminary 
results; consequently, using the last day of verification as the basis 
for payment date extends the credit period several months beyond what 
is typical for unpaid sales, covering a period in which the respondent 
was unable to provide new information. Second, references to ``unpaid'' 
sales typically involve circumstances in which no payment has been 
made, rather than payment to the wrong party. While it is clear, as 
stated above, that imputed credit is based on the receipt of payment, 
the particular circumstances of this case (i.e., payment made to the 
wrong party, court judgment in favor of the U.S. affiliate, and a 
credit period of approximately two years under the aforementioned 
Department practice) suggest that using the last day of verification as 
the payment date would be unwarranted. Consequently, we have decided to 
use as payment date the date of the last submission made by SeAH prior 
to determination of the preliminary results (August 19, 1998), the same 
date we utilized in our preliminary results.

Comment 2: Clerical Error in Treatment of CREDITU

    Petitioners allege that the Department made a clerical error in the 
preliminary results by using outdated values for imputed U.S. credit 
expense (``CREDITU'') in the margin program. According to petitioners, 
the Department recalculated CREDITU to replace several negative credit 
values, but failed to use the recalculated figures for CREDITU in the 
margin calculation. Petitioners argue the Department should correct the 
margin program to properly utilize the recalculated figures for 
CREDITU. To this end, petitioners provide a replacement code for the 
margin program used in the Preliminary Results, which designated August 
19, 1998 as payment date for the involved sales.
    Respondent contends that the Department should not correct the 
clerical error identified by petitioners, but should instead determine 
that the date of payment for the sales at issue is February 20, 1997, 
the date of the aforementioned summary judgement. Respondent does not 
disagree with petitioners' suggested changes to the margin program, and 
concurs with petitioners' claim that the Department made a clerical 
error in its preliminary margin calculation. However, respondent 
disagrees with the need to use August 19, 1998 as the payment date for 
the sales at issue (those four sales which were the subject of the 
aforementioned litigation) for the same reasons articulated in Comment 
1 above.

Department's Position

    The Department acknowledges that it made a clerical error as 
described above. The Department has made a correction to the margin 
program and has properly utilized the recalculated figures for CREDITU, 
based on a payment date of August 19, 1998, as described in Comment 1 
above.

Comment 3: Adding Duty Drawback to Third-Country Sales for Margin 
Analysis and Cost Test

    Respondent argues that the Department should add duty drawback to 
third-country comparison market sales price for purposes of running 
both the margin analysis and cost test. For the preliminary 
determination, the Department used Myanmar as a comparison market. 
However, respondent points out that in doing so, the Department 
erroneously failed to account for duty drawback, as it was not added 
into third-country prices for use in the cost test and margin analysis. 
Respondent notes that the Department requested data on duty-inclusive 
costs, but not data on duty exclusive costs. As a result, in conducting 
the cost test and margin analysis, the Department compared duty-
inclusive cost with duty-exclusive third-country sale price. To remedy 
this alleged error, respondent believes the Department must include 
duty drawback in third-country sales price, and then rerun the cost 
test and margin analysis.

[[Page 13172]]

Department's Position

    We agree with the respondent. In a recent case involving use of 
third country sales as the basis for normal value, the Department made 
``an adjustment to normal value for duty drawback'' for a respondent, 
Mares Australes. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 31411 (June 9, 
1998). The Department had determined that the home market was not 
viable for that respondent, and that sales to a third country, Japan, 
should be used as the basis of normal value. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From Chile, 63 FR 2664, 
2668-69. Furthermore, we note that the calculation of third country 
price for use in the cost test should also reflect an addition for duty 
drawback. It is the Department's current practice to request cost of 
production data inclusive of duty, as reflected at page D-12 of the 
Department's September 16, 1997 Section D Questionnaire: ``Direct 
materials costs should include transportation charges, import duties 
and other expenses normally associated with obtaining the materials 
that become an integral part of the finished product'' (emphasis 
added). As noted by respondent, the Department only requested duty-
inclusive cost data for this review, and its reported costs include 
those duties. As a result, in order to effectuate an ``apples-to-
apples'' comparison, the Department must add duty drawback to the 
third-country prices used for the cost test. Accordingly, the 
Department added duty drawback to both third-country net price for 
comparison to US price and to third-country price for comparison to 
cost of production in the cost test.

Comment 4: Duty Drawback when Normal Value is Constructed Value

    Petitioners argue that where SeAH's CEP sales are compared to 
constructed value (CV), the Department must account for differences 
between the amount of duty included in CV and the amount of duty 
drawback adjustment claimed for CEP sales. Petitioners note that SeAH 
included duties in the raw material costs reported for cost of 
manufacture for CV. However, petitioners state, the duties respondent 
included in CV are not equivalent to the duty drawback adjustments 
claimed for U.S. sales. As a result, petitioners believe normal value 
and constructed export price are not being compared on the same basis. 
Petitioners state that this inequitable comparison is due to SeAH's 
improper calculation of raw material input costs. According to 
petitioners, SeAH calculated its raw material input costs based on the 
total average cost of domestic and imported steel for each product 
instead of on the cost of steel for the subject merchandise which only 
includes imported steel weighted by the relative amount of the duty 
drawback claimed on each sale. Petitioners note that according to 19 
U.S.C. 1677b(e), ``the constructed value of imported merchandise shall 
be an amount equal to the sum of . . . the cost of materials . . . 
employed in producing the merchandise.'' Thus, petitioners assert, the 
statute requires that the cost of materials used in CV be the cost of 
materials for the product imported into the U.S. Petitioners argue that 
ignoring the resulting uneven treatment of duties in CV and Constructed 
Export Price distorts the dumping margin calculation. Thus, petitioners 
argue the Department must adjust for the difference.
    In order to make this adjustment, petitioners argue that the 
Department should have respondent report material costs for CV without 
including duties, and then add the amount of duty drawback claimed on 
each sale to the reported cost of manufacture when calculating CV for 
each sale. If duty drawback is not claimed, petitioners argue that the 
average duty calculated by SeAH should be used.
    Petitioners further argue that if the Department does not include 
the full amount of duties claimed in the drawback adjustment in CV, 
then it must make some other adjustment for the difference between 
normal value and CEP caused by the different values for duty by either 
limiting the drawback adjustment claimed by SeAH to the amount of 
duties included in CV, or by granting a circumstances of sale 
adjustment per 19 U.S.C. 1677b(a)(6)(C)(iii).
    According to respondent, petitioners' arguments to add duty 
drawback to constructed value have been previously rejected by the 
Court of International Trade. Laclede Steele Co. v. United States, 18 
CIT 965 (1994). Respondent argues that there is nothing in the statute, 
the regulations or the Department's practice to sanction petitioners' 
approach. According to respondent, the Department has a two-tiered test 
for determining the appropriateness of a duty drawback adjustment. 
Respondent cites Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea in support of this 
assertion. 57 FR 42942, 42946 (September 17, 1992). Respondent claims 
that according to this case, a party must first demonstrate that import 
duty and rebate are directly linked to, and dependent upon, one 
another. Id. Second, a party must demonstrate that the company claiming 
the adjustment can demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of 
imported raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on the 
exports of the manufactured product. Id. Respondent argues that it has 
satisfied this two-tiered test. According to respondent, petitioners' 
argument that duty drawback and import duties included in CV should be 
the same is not supported by the law, regulations, or practice, and 
that previous arguments in favor of imposing such a requirement have 
been rejected in court (e.g., in the Laclede case). Finally, respondent 
argues that the Department has deliberately not interpreted the 
relevant statutory language to limit such cost to the merchandise 
exported to the U.S.
    Respondent also argues that petitioners' suggested alternative 
adjustments to account for the difference between normal value and 
CEP--either by limiting the drawback adjustment claimed by SeAH to the 
amount of duties included in CV, or by granting a circumstances of sale 
adjustment'would require that an entity prove that cost of 
manufacturing includes the same amount of duty as that claimed in the 
drawback. This, according to respondent, goes beyond the requirements 
of the Department's current two-tiered test. Respondent notes that 
prior attempts to add such criteria to the two-tiered test have been 
rejected by the court. Respondent also argues that none of the cases 
cited in the petitioners' brief override the aforementioned court 
decision of Laclede.

Department's Position

    An upward adjustment to sale price for duty drawback is provided 
for in section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. The Department utilizes a two 
prong test to determine whether a party is entitled to a duty drawback 
adjustment: (1) The import duty and rebate must be directly linked to, 
and dependent upon, one another, and (2) the company claiming the 
adjustment must demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of 
imported raw materials to account for the duty drawback received on 
exports of the manufactured products. See, e.g., Silicon Metal from 
Brazil: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 6305, 6318 (February 9, 1999). This test was in Far East 
Machinery Co. v. United

[[Page 13173]]

States, 699 F. Supp. 309, 311 (CIT 1988).
    The U.S. Court of International Trade has consistently held that 
there is no requirement that a specific input be traced from 
importation through exportation before allowing drawback on duties 
paid. Laclede Steel Co. v. United States, 18 CIT 965, 972 (1994). The 
only limit on the allowance for duty drawback is that the adjustment to 
U.S. sales price may not exceed the amount of import duty actually 
paid. Id.
    Respondent satisfied both prongs of the aforementioned test, and 
was therefore entitled to claim a duty drawback adjustment. 
Respondent's duty drawback rebates are received under Korea's 
individual application system, which limits such rebates to actual 
duties paid. Duty drawback was reviewed at verification, and no 
inconsistencies with respondent's reported methodology were noted. See 
Verification Report at 13-14. Thus, duty drawback rebates received by 
respondent are not excessive.
    It is the long standing-policy of the Department to require that 
respondents include import duties in constructed value. See Offshore 
Platform Jackets and Piles from the Republic of Korea: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 11795, 11796 
(April 7, 1986). Requesting duty-exclusive constructed value data would 
add a new hurdle to the two prong drawback test that is not required 
under current Department regulations or policy.
    Accordingly, the respondent was not required to report duty-
exclusive constructed value data, nor otherwise make additional 
adjustments to the duty drawback claimed.

Comment 5: Duty Drawback Reported for CEP Sales

    Petitioners argue that because duties were paid on an actual weight 
basis in Korea, and because duty drawback was paid on a theoretical 
weight basis, the Department should reduce duty drawback by multiplying 
the claimed drawback by the reported conversion. Petitioners cite Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial 
Termination of Administrative Review; Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel 
Pipe from the Republic of Korea in support of this position. 62 FR 
55574, 55577 (October 27, 1997).
    Respondent argues that the circumstances leading to the adjustment 
in the case cited by petitioners are not applicable to the sales in 
this review. Respondent notes that the adjustment in the cited case was 
made because an entity was receiving duty drawback under a fixed rate 
system. However, according to respondent, there were only two 
observations in which merchandise was received under a fixed rate duty 
drawback system in the present review. Respondent also notes that in 
the fourth review of the cited case, the entity selling under the fixed 
rate system switched to an individual application system. See Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 32833 (June 16, 1998). 
According to respondent, the Department determined that only the 
amounts received under the fixed rate system (received prior to the 
switch to the individual application system) warranted an adjustment. 
Id. at 32837. Respondent notes that in the present case, there is only 
one observation where duty drawback was received under the fixed rate 
system. Respondent notes that the drawback arguably should be adjusted 
for the difference between the theoretical and actual weight under the 
precedent cited by petitioners. Respondent notes, however, that the 
adjustment factor would be one, and thus have no effect, given that the 
product in question was produced and sold on a theoretical weight 
basis. In total, respondent argues that no additional adjustments to 
the reported duty drawback are warranted.

Department's Position

    To the extent that duty drawback rebates exceed actual duties paid, 
the Department agrees with petitioners that adjustments to U.S. price 
should be limited to the amount of duties paid. However, with only one 
exception, the U.S. sales in this review, unlike those in the review 
cited by petitioners, were under the Korean individual application 
system, and the rebates received were limited to actual duties paid and 
were therefore not excessive. Again, duty drawback was reviewed at 
verification, and no inconsistencies with respondent's reported 
methodology were noted. As a result, the Department has used the full 
amount of duty drawback as reported in the analysis for the Final 
Results.
    For the abovementioned single sale made under the Korean fixed rate 
system, the Department agrees with the respondent that the conversion 
factor would be one, and thus have no effect. Both the total costs for 
the product in question and the total duty drawback requested reflect a 
higher quantity of the imported material than would have been the case 
if the product had been produced and sold on an actual weight basis. As 
this sale was of a product produced on a theoretical weight basis, and 
because duty drawback is paid on a theoretical weight basis, no 
adjustment to the reported duty drawback is necessary.

Final Results of Review

    These administrative reviews and notices are published in 
accordance with 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

                        Oil Country Tubular Goods
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
             Producer/manufacturer/exporter               average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH....................................................            2.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U. S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have 
calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate based on the ratio 
of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of the same sales. The rate will be 
assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular company made 
during the POR. The Department shall issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of oil country tubular goods from Korea entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rates for the reviewed company named above will be the rate for that 
firm as stated above; (2) for previously 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 these reviews, or the original LTFV 
investigations, 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 these reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be 12.17 percent, which was the ``all others'' rate in the LTFV 
investigations. 60 FR at 41058.
    The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a

[[Page 13174]]

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 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with Sec. 351.306 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.

    Dated: March 8, 1999.
Robert LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-6401 Filed 3-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P