[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18747-18749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8934]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]


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

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce has conducted an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel 
pipe from the Republic of Korea. This review covers imports of subject 
merchandise from three producers/exporters. We have determined that 
sales have been made below normal value during the review period of 
November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999.
    Based on our review of comments received, we have made certain 
changes in the margin calculation for all of the reviewed companies. 
Consequently, the final results differ from the preliminary results. 
The final weighted-average dumping margins for these firms are listed 
below in the section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.'' Based on 
these final results of review, we will instruct the Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export 
price and normal value on all appropriate entries.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Campbell or Suresh Maniam, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2239 
or 482-0176, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the ``Act''), are references 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 of 
Commerce's (``Department's'') regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 
(2000).

Background

    The period of review (``POR'') is November 1, 1998, through October 
31, 1999. This review covers the following exporters (referred to 
collectively as ``the respondents''): Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd. 
(``HDP''),\1\ SeAH Steel Corporation (``SeAH'') and Shinho Steel Co., 
Ltd. (``Shinho'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a letter dated January 5, 2001, HDP informed the 
Department that its corporate name would change to Hyundai Steel 
Company effective February 1, 2001. On February 27, 2001, the 
Department initiated a changed circumstances review to determine 
whether entries naming ``Hyundai Hysco'' as manufacturer or exporter 
should receive the cash deposit rate currently applied to HDP. 
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea; Initiation of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 12460 (February 27, 2001). Pending a 
final determination in that changed circumstances review, we will 
continue to refer to the respondent in the instant review as HDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 6, 2000, the Department published Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Administrative Review, 65 FR 73218 
(December 6, 2000) (``Preliminary Results''), and invited parties to 
comment on our Preliminary Results. The domestic interested parties, 
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. and Wheatland Tube Co., and the 
respondents submitted case briefs on January 19, 2001, and rebuttal 
briefs on January 26, 2001. At the request of certain interested 
parties, we held a public hearing on March 1, 2001.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm 
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface 
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, 
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes 
are generally known as standard pipes and tubes, and are intended for 
the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and 
other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-
conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related 
uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm 
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is 
also included in this order.
    All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description 
outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line 
pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe 
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished 
conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative 
Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and 
Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L 
line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe 
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe 
specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined 
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 
pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    We compared the products sold by the respondents in the comparison 
market to sales that entered the United States during the POR using the 
methodology described in the Preliminary Results, with the following 
exception:
    At the Preliminary Results, we included specification as a matching 
criterion for determining similar products for Shinho and SeAH. 
Consistent with our methodology in prior reviews, and in light of the 
lack of evidence that specification captures important differences in 
physical characteristics not reflected in other matching criteria, we 
have revised Shinho's and SeAH's margin calculations by removing 
specification as one of the matching criteria for similar matches. We 
note that HDP's

[[Page 18748]]

preliminary margin calculation did not include specification as a 
criterion in determining similar matches and, therefore, we have made 
no changes to HDP's program in this regard. See Comment 1 of the 
accompanying Memorandum to Bernard T. Carreau, from Richard W. 
Moreland, ``Issues and Decision Memo'' (April 5, 2001) (``Decision 
Memo'').
    Furthermore, with respect to HDP, for the final results we have re-
coded the end-finish matching criterion. See Comment 8 of the 
accompanying Decision Memorandum.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of standard pipe from the ROK were made 
in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to normal value 
(``NV''), as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below. Our calculations followed 
the methodologies described in the Preliminary Results with the 
following exception:
    For the final results we have expanded our window for potential 
contemporaneous home market sales to include all home market sales that 
were made within the period three months prior to the sale date of the 
earliest reported U.S. sale through two months subsequent to the sale 
date of the last reported U.S. sale. See Comment 3 of the accompanying 
Decision Memorandum.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For sales to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or CEP 
in accordance with sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act determined by 
the methodology described in the Preliminary Results, with the 
following exception: we reviewed sales of merchandise entered during 
the POR rather than POR sales. See Comment 2 of the Decision 
Memorandum.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    HDP and SeAH reported sales in the home market of ``overrun'' 
merchandise (i.e., sales of pipe that exceeded the amount ordered by 
customers due to overproduction). HDP and SeAH claimed that we should 
disregard ``overrun'' sales in the home market because these sales are 
outside the ordinary course of trade. Based on our analysis of these 
sales, we found overrun sales to be outside the ordinary course of 
trade. See Comment 5 of the accompanying Decision Memorandum.

B. Arm's-Length Test

    Since the Preliminary Results, the Department revised the arm's-
length test for sales to SeAH's affiliate, Haiduk Steel Industrial Co., 
Ltd. Specifically, we collapsed nine distinct customer codes into one 
customer code for purposes of the arm's-length test. We consider these 
nine customer codes to represent a single customer, HSI, for purposes 
of the arm's-length test. We have made the appropriate changes in the 
margin calculations for SeAH. See Comment 12 of the accompanying 
Decision Memorandum.
    Additionally, we stated in the Preliminary Results that we intended 
to perform an arm's-length test for HDP's home market sales. This test 
was inadvertently omitted from the calculation program. For the final 
results we have corrected the calculation program accordingly.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    We used the same methodology in performing the COP analysis as in 
the Preliminary Results with the following exceptions:
    We have added packing expenses to the reported COM for SeAH and 
Shinho, and recalculated G & A and interest expenses. See Comment 4 of 
the accompanying Decision Memorandum.
    We disallowed certain non-production-related income offsets to 
Shinho's G & A costs. Moreover, because we disallowed these income 
items, we also excluded the corresponding expenses. See Comment 11 of 
the accompanying Decision Memorandum.

D. Level of Trade (LOT)

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the Department is unable to find sales 
of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as 
the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market.
    Sales are made at different levels of trade if they are made at 
different marketing stages (or their equivalent). 19 CFR 412(c)(2). 
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not 
sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the 
stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997). Pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for 
EP and home market sales, we consider the selling functions reflected 
in the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we 
consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the 
deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See 
Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 00-1058, -1060 
(Fed. Cir. March 7, 2001). We expect that, if claimed levels of trade 
are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be 
similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are 
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities 
of the seller should be dissimilar.
    When CEP sales have been made in the United States, section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(f) allow for a CEP offset 
under two conditions: (1) NV is established at a LOT that is at a more 
advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP; and (2) the 
data available do not permit a determination that there is a pattern of 
consistent price differences between sales at different LOTs in the 
comparison market.
    We obtained information from each respondent regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by 
the respondents for each channel of distribution. For a detailed 
description of our LOT methodology and a summary of company-specific 
LOT findings for these final results, see Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, 
``Final LOT Memorandum for SeAH Steel Corp. and Shinho Steel Co., 
Ltd.'' (April 5, 2001).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Decision Memo, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have 
raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision 
Memo, is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a 
complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy 
and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the 
period

[[Page 18749]]

November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shinho.......................................................       2.89
SeAH.........................................................       0.96
HDP..........................................................       2.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Because 
certain importer-specific assessment rates calculated in these final 
results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by applying 
the assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise. For 
assessment purposes, we calculate importer-specific assessment rates 
for the subject merchandise by aggregating the dumping duties due for 
all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing the amount by the total 
entered value of the sales to that importer.

Cash Deposit Rates

    To calculate the cash-deposit rate for each producer and/or 
exporter included in this administrative review, we divided the total 
dumping margins for each company by the total net value for that 
company's sales.
    The following deposit requirements will be required on all 
shipments of standard pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption, effective on or after the publication date 
of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above, except if the 
rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash 
deposit will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or 
exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-
than-fair-value investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit 
will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but 
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established 
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 
(4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in 
this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 4.80 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Orders: Certain Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), 
Mexico, and Venezuela, and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 
Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992).
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 5, 2001.
Timothy J. Hauser,
Acting Under Secretary for International Trade.

Appendix--List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum

A. General Issues

Comment 1: Inclusion of Specification in Matching Criteria
Comment 2: Exclusion of Certain Sales Entered During POR
Comment 3: Exclusion of Certain Sales in Contemporaneous Window
Comment 4: G & A and Interest Ratios

B. HDP Specific Issues

Comment 5: HDP's Overrun Sales
Comment 6: Application of the Arm's-length Test to HDP's Home Market 
Sales
Comment 7: Calculation of HDP's Interest Expense Ratio
Comment 8: Product Matching Codes for End Finish
Comment 9: Separate Analysis of Products Produced by HDP and Those 
Further Manufactured by HDP

C. SeAH & Shinho Specific Issues

Comment 10: Bad Debt Expenses
Comment 11: Non-Operating Related Income Offsetting G & A Expenses
Comment 12: Arm's-Length Test Should be Rerun for Certain of SeAH's 
Sales
Comment 13: CEP Offset for Shinho and SeAH

[FR Doc. 01-8934 Filed 4-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P