[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34190-34194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16244]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; and 
Partial Revocation

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review and partial revocation.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by one respondent, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting two administrative reviews of 
the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and 
tube from Mexico (A-201-805). These reviews cover one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during two 
periods of review (POR): April 28, 1992, through October 31, 1993, (the 
92/93 POR) and November 1, 1993, through October 31, 1994 (the 93/94 
POR).
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the foreign market value (FMV) for the first period of review (POR). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess 
antidumping duties based upon the difference between the United States 
price (USP) and the FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATES: June 25, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, Nancy Decker or Linda 
Ludwig, Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-0195 (Drury), (202) 482-0196 (Decker), or (202) 
482-3833 (Ludwig).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on circular 
welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico on November 2, 1992 
(57 FR 49453). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to 
Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for 
the 92/93 POR on November 3, 1993 (58 FR 58682). On November 19, 1993, 
respondent Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico. On November 
30, 1993, respondent Tuberia Nacional S.A. de C.V. (``TUNA'') requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of this order. We 
initiated this review on January 18, 1994. See 59 FR 2593 (January 18, 
1994).
    The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 93/94 POR 
on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56034). On November 29, 1994, respondent 
Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded 
non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico. On November 30, 1994, 
respondent Western American Manufacturing, Inc. (``Western American'') 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of this 
order. We initiated this review on December 15, 1994. See 59 FR 64650 
(December 15, 1994).
    The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'').

Partial Termination of Review

    On November 30, 1995, TUNA withdrew its request for administrative 
review for the 92/93 POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). Ordinarily, 
parties have 90 days from the date of publication of notice of 
initiation within which to withdraw a request for review. In this case, 
the record indicates that petitioners have no objection to the 
withdrawal and in fact had previously requested that the Department 
terminate the review of TUNA (See Letter to Secretary of Commerce from 
R. Alan Luberda, dated May 11, 1994). In addition, the review of TUNA 
has not progressed substantially and there would be no undue burden on 
the parties or the Department as a result of said withdrawal. 
Therefore, the Department has determined that it would be reasonable to 
grant the withdrawal at this time. In accordance with section 
353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations, the Department has 
terminated the 92/93 administrative review insofar as it regards TUNA.
    On March 14, 1995, Western American withdrew its request for 
administrative review for the 93/94 POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.22(a)(5). Ordinarily, parties have 90 days from the date of 
publication of notice of initiation within which to withdraw a request 
for review. In this case, the

[[Page 34191]]

record indicates that petitioners have no objection to the withdrawal. 
In addition, the review of Western American has not progressed 
substantially and there would be no undue burden on the parties or the 
Department as a result of said withdrawal. Therefore, the Department 
has determined that it would be reasonable to grant the withdrawal at 
this time. In accordance with section 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's 
regulations, the Department has terminated the 93/94 administrative 
review insofar as it regards to Western American.

Scope of the Review

    The review of ``circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube'' 
covers products of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 
millimeters (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). 
Those pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they 
may also be called structural or mechanical tubing in certain 
applications. Standard pipes and tubes 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 and mechanical applications, such 
as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as 
conduit shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or 
those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard 
pipe applications. 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, 
cold-drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. In 
accordance with the Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry (56 
FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L line pipe 
specification, or pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe 
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard pipe 
specifications, which fall within the physical parameters as outlined 
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 
pipelines, are outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.3010.00, 
7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 
7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. These HTS item numbers are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain 
dispositive.
    The 92/93 POR is April 28, 1992 through October 31, 1993, and the 
93/94 POR is November 1, 1993 through October 31, 1994. Subsequent to 
the partial terminations above, these reviews cover sales of circular 
welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube by Hylsa.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by the respondent using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's 
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records, 
and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
versions of the verification reports.

Use of Best Information Available (92/93 POR)

    Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that, in making a final 
determination in an administrative review, if the Department ``is 
unable to verify the accuracy of the information submitted, it shall 
use the best information available to it as the basis for its action. * 
* *'' In addition, section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to 
use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to 
produce information requested in a timely manner or in the form 
required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation. * * *''
    In deciding what to use as BIA, section 353.37(b) of our 
regulations provides that we may take into account whether a party 
refuses to provide information. For purposes of these reviews, and in 
accordance with our practice, we have used the more adverse BIA--
generally the highest rate for any company for the same class or kind 
of merchandise from the same country from this or any prior segment of 
the proceeding, including the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation--whenever a company refused to cooperate with the 
Department or otherwise significantly impeded the proceeding. When a 
company substantially cooperated with our requests for information, but 
we were unable to verify information it provided or it failed to 
provide all information requested in a timely manner or in the form 
requested, we used as BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate (including 
the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm for the same class 
or kind of merchandise from the same country from either the LTFV 
investigation or a prior administrative review; or (2) the highest 
calculated rate in this review for any firm for the same class or kind 
of merchandise from the same country.
    We preliminarily determine that the use of best information 
available (BIA), in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, is 
appropriate for Hylsa for the 92/93 POR. We have assigned a cooperative 
(second-tier) BIA rate to the company for these preliminary results, 
which is the rate assigned to Hylsa during the original investigation. 
When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for 
information but we are unable to verify the information it provided or 
the company fails to provide complete or accurate information, we 
assign that company second-tier BIA. (See Allied Signal v. United 
States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cia. 1993) (concluding that the 
Department's two-tiered BIA methodology, under which cooperating 
companies are assigned the lower, ``second tier'' BIA rate, is 
reasonable).)
    Hylsa cooperated with our requests for information and agreed to 
verification. However, the multiple and pervasive nature of errors and 
omissions in the information provided by Hylsa prevented the Department 
from relying on Hylsa's response for these preliminary results. For 
example, despite our attempts, we were unable to verify either Hylsa's 
total quantity and value of home-market sales or its value of U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise. In addition, we found a significant 
discrepancy between reported and actual third-country sales of subject 
merchandise. (See verification report.)
    Establishing the completeness of the response with respect to the 
quantity and value of sales in both the home and U.S. markets is a very 
significant element of verification. However, as a result of 
verification, Hylsa subsequently acknowledged that it had failed to 
report approximately 10% of its sales of subject merchandise in the 
home market for the period of review. Moreover, Hylsa did not retain 
the complete database used to develop its response to the Department. 
As a result, we were unable to reconcile the quantity and value figures 
for the home market reported to the Department with the company's 
audited financial statements. In addition, Hylsa failed to prepare a 
detailed analysis of home market sales in a pre-selected month of the 
POR as requested in our verification outline. Finally, Hylsa was unable 
to

[[Page 34192]]

explain the discrepancy in U.S. sales value. (See verification report.)
    The completeness of both the home market and U.S. sales databases 
is essential because both are used to calculate the dumping duties. As 
the Department stated in Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke 
in Part, 62 FR 1954 (January 14, 1996), it is the obligation of 
respondents to provide an accurate and complete response prior to 
verification so that the Department may have the opportunity to analyze 
fully the information and other parties are able to review and comment 
on it. Verification is intended to establish the accuracy and 
completeness of a response rather than to supplement and reconstruct 
the information to fit the requirements of the Department. 
``Establishing the completeness of the response with respect to the 
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States is a very 
significant element of the verification.'' Antifriction Bearings (Other 
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66742 (December 17, 1996). ``The 
completeness of the U.S. sales database is essential because it is used 
to calculate the dumping duties.'' Id. It is our practice at 
verification to examine a selected portion of both databases, rather 
than the entire database, to test the accuracy and completeness of 
information that the company provided. The CIT has upheld this 
practice. See Bomont Industries v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 1507, 
1508 (CIT 1990) (``verification is like an audit, the purpose of which 
is to test information provided by a party for accuracy and 
completeness. Normally an audit entails selective examination rather 
than testing of an entire universe.''); See also Monsanto Co. v. United 
States, 698 F.Supp. 275, 281 (CIT 1988) (``verification is a spot check 
and is not intended to be an exhaustive examination of the respondent's 
business''). Where the Department finds discrepancies in the portion 
which it examines, it must judge the effect on the unexamined portion 
of the response. In the instant case, the loss of a database used to 
prepare the original response to the Department prevented Hylsa from 
reconciling aggregate total figures reported to the Department with the 
company's financial statements. While the company was generally able to 
tie monthly financial statements to a monthly sales statistics 
database, it had no explanation as to the remaining discrepancies 
between this database and the information submitted to the Department.
    In addition, the company's admission that it had failed to report 
approximately 10 percent of home market sales of subject merchandise 
further throws the reported quantity and value figures into doubt. 
Since the Department was unable to reconcile aggregate totals, we 
requested (as we did in the verification outline) that Hylsa prepare a 
worksheet tying the pre-selected month to the response submitted to the 
Department. The pre-selected month corresponded to the month when most 
of the U.S. sales occurred and most likely would have been used in the 
calculation of the dumping duties. The company stated that it could not 
prepare the requested worksheet without the missing database for that 
month. Department officials then requested a listing of sales from a 
different month in an attempt to tie it to the sales statistics 
database. When a Department official selected a particular sale and 
requested supporting documentation, the company was unable to produce 
it at that time. Late on the last day, Hylsa indicated that it could 
provide the supporting documentation. By that time, however, there was 
insufficient time for Department officials to verify and establish the 
accuracy of the documents. (See verification report.)
    We believe that the use of total BIA is warranted. The inability of 
Hylsa to reconcile aggregate quantities and values to its financial 
statements throws into doubt the accuracy of Hylsa's reported 
transaction-specific sales. Since such sales are used to calculate FMV 
on a monthly basis, the addition or omission of home-market sales can 
have a large impact on the final margin. If there are a small number of 
sales to the U.S. in relation to the home-market, or sales are bunched 
in particular months, or certain products are only sold in a limited 
number of months, or other conditions exist, the potential for 
distortion or manipulation by omitting or creating home-market sales is 
particularly great. We must be certain that all sales are reported 
accurately and completely to address this concern, and reconciling 
quantity and value is one of the most fundamental ways of ensuring 
accuracy and completeness. Without that certainty, we do not believe 
that it is possible to calculate an accurate margin for this POR.
    As explained above, the multiple and pervasive nature of errors and 
omissions in the information provided by Hylsa prevented the 
Department's reliance on its submissions for these preliminary results. 
See, e.g. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. United States, 910 F.Supp. 679 (CIT 
1995) (upholding the Department's use of second-tier BIA where the 
Department found that respondent's errors and omissions were multiple 
and pervasive); National Steel Corp. v. United States, 870 F.Supp. 1130 
(CIT 1994) (approving the Department's use of BIA where respondent 
omitted significant information from submissions); Tatung Co. v. United 
States, 18 C.I.T. 1137 (1994) (upholding the Department's use of BIA 
due to omissions and errors in respondent's submission). Therefore, in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, the inability to 
verify aggregate quantity and value figures was the determining factor 
in our decision to apply BIA to the company's response for the 92/93 
POR. See decision memorandum, February 28, 1997.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, for the 93/94 POR, 
we considered each circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube 
product produced by Hylsa, covered by the descriptions in the ``Scope 
of the Review'' section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home 
market during the POR, to be such or similar merchandise for purposes 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube. For each of the products 
produced by Hylsa within the scope of the A-201-805 order, we examined 
the categories of merchandise listed in Section 771 (16) of the Act for 
purposes of model matching. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis 
of the characteristics listed in Appendix VI of the Department's April 
24, 1996 antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, 
we matched each foreign like product based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondent and verified by the 
Department. Where sales were made in the home market on a different 
weight basis from the U.S. market (e.g. theoretical versus actual 
weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using 
the conversion factors supplied by Hylsa, before making our fair-value 
comparisons. We compared individual U.S. transactions to monthly 
weighted average FMVs.

[[Page 34193]]

Date of Sale

    For the 93/94 POR, depending on the channel of trade and on the 
date after which the key terms of sale could not be changed, we treated 
one of the following dates as the date of the sale: The date of the 
invoice or the date of shipment.

United States Price

    All of Hylsa's U.S. sales in the 93/94 POR were based on the price 
to the first unrelated purchaser in the United States. The Department 
determined that purchase price, as defined in section 772 of the Tariff 
Act, was the appropriate basis for calculating USP. We made adjustments 
to purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, insurance, U.S. 
inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties.

Foreign Market Value

    Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third 
country sales, we determined that the home market was viable. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we based 
FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in the home 
market. Based on our verification of home-market sales responses, we 
are disallowing an adjustment for a steel supplier rebate. We have 
previously outlined our reasons for rejecting this adjustment. See 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 57 FR 42953 (September 
17, 1992) (``this rebate program does not qualify for a circumstance of 
sale adjustment because it reflects a difference in production costs, 
rather than a difference in selling expenses. Adjustments for 
circumstance of sale are, by definition, limited to consideration of a 
seller's marketing practices and expenses, and are unaffected by 
conditions affecting production''); See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 68708 (December 30, 1996).
    We made adjustments to FMV for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

    Petitioners alleged, on July 23, 1996 with respect to the 93/94 
POR, that Hylsa sold circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes in 
the home market at prices below COP. Based on this allegation, in 
accordance with Section 773(b) of the Act, the Department determined, 
on September 30, 1996, that it had reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that Hylsa had sold the subject merchandise in the home market 
at prices below its COP. See Letter to Shearman and Sterling and 
Decision Memorandum (September 30, 1996). We therefore initiated a cost 
investigation with regard to Hylsa for the 93/94 POR in order to 
determine whether the respondent made home-market sales during the 93/
94 POR at prices below its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP for Hylsa as 
the sum of reported materials, labor, factory overhead, and general 
expenses. We compared COP to home market prices, net of price 
adjustments, discounts, and movement expenses.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in determining 
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we 
examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an 
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices 
which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time in the normal course of trade.
    In accordance with our normal practice, for each model for which 
less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the 
POR were made at prices below COP, we included all sales of that model 
in the computation of FMV. For each model for which 10 percent or more, 
but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales during the POR were 
priced below COP, we excluded those sales priced below COP, provided 
that they were made over an extended period of time. For each model for 
which 90 percent or more of the home market sales during the POR were 
priced below COP and were made over an extended period of time, we 
disregarded all sales of that model in our calculation and, in 
accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the 
constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, e.g., 
Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan, Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).
    In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine 
whether sales below cost had been made over an extended period of time, 
we compared the number of months in which sales below cost occurred for 
a particular model to the number of months in which that model was 
sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months, we did not 
disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that 
model in each month. If a model was sold in three or more months, we 
did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below cost 
in at least three of the months. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December 8, 1993).
    Because Hylsa provided no indication that its below-cost sales of 
models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the ``between 10 and 
90 percent'' categories were at prices that would permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal course 
of trade, we disregarded those sales of models within the ``10 to 90 
percent'' category which were made below cost over an extended period 
of time. In addition, as a result of our COP test for home market sales 
of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' category, we based FMV 
on CV for all U.S. sales for which more than 90 percent of sales of the 
comparison home market model occurred below COP. Finally, where we 
found, for certain of Hylsa's models, home market sales for which less 
than 10 percent were made below COP, we used all home market sales of 
these models in our comparisons.
    We also used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there was no 
sale of such or similar merchandise in the home market. We calculated 
CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost 
of materials, labor, and factory overhead in our calculations. Where 
the general expenses were less than the statutory minimum of 10 percent 
of the cost of manufacture (COM), we calculated general expenses as 10 
percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were less than the 
statutory minimum of 8 percent of the COM plus general expenses, we 
calculated profit as 8 percent of the sum of COM plus general expenses. 
Based on our verification of Hylsa's cost response, we adjusted Hylsa's 
reported COP and CV as described below.
    Contrary to specific written instructions from the Department, we 
found that Hylsa failed to report weighted-average costs by product for 
the entire POR. Instead, Hylsa reported six months of costs by product 
which were not weight-averaged. As best information available, we made 
the following changes. Since respondent did not provide twelve months 
of

[[Page 34194]]

weighted-average cost data, we used as best information available the 
highest monthly cost by product as the actual cost for the POR. We 
segregated home-market sales by finish into galvanized and non-
galvanized products. As best information available, we took the highest 
product cost in each of these two groups and applied it to all products 
within the specific groups.
    In accordance with section 773 of the Act, for those U.S. models 
for which we were able to find a home market such or similar match that 
had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on the packed, 
F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in the 
home market. We made adjustments, where applicable, for post-sale 
inland freight and for home market direct expenses. We also adjusted 
FMV for differences in circumstances of sale based on direct selling 
expenses.

Reimbursement

    Petitioners requested that the Department examine the issue of 
reimbursement where the producer/exporter is the importer of record. 
Section 353.26 of the Department's regulations states that ``[i]n 
calculating the United States price, the Secretary will deduct the 
amount of any antidumping duty which the producer or reseller: (i) 
[P]aid directly on behalf of the importer; or (ii) [r]eimbursed to the 
importer.'' 19 CFR 353.26(a)(1). The Department's interpretation of the 
regulation is that it anticipates that separate corporate entities must 
exist as producer/reseller and importer in order to invoke the 
regulation. In the present case, the U.S. importer of record, Hylsa, is 
also the same corporate entity that produces and exports the subject 
merchandise. In such a case, there is no separate company or separate 
U.S. subsidiary, wholly owned or otherwise, that acts as the importer 
of record. Rather, the importer and exporter are one and the same 
corporate entity. In this case, there can be no payment made to, or on 
behalf of, the importer within the meaning of the regulation. 
Accordingly, the Department interprets its reimbursement regulation as 
inapplicable in this case.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily 
determine that the following margin exists:

             Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipes and Tubes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted--average
            Producer/manufacturer/exporter              margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa 92/93..........................................           32.62
Hylsa 93/94..........................................           27.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date 
of publication of this notice and 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 written comments from interested parties may be submitted 
no 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 these administrative reviews including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages 
stated above.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate 
established in the final results of the 93/94 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; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
review, the cash deposit rate will be 32.62 percent. This is the ``all 
others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 
From Mexico, 57 FR 42953 (September 17, 1992).
    This notice also 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: June 15, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-16244 Filed 6-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P