[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37454-37456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-805]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Helen Kramer, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0195 or (202) 482-0405, respectively.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this order are circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipes and tubes, 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). 
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, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating 
systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other 
related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard 
pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for 
fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing

[[Page 37455]]

used for framing and support members for reconstruction or load-bearing 
purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, 
and related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in 
these orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outlined above are included within the scope of these 
orders, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, 
mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished 
scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple 
certified/stenciled that enters the United States as line pipe of a 
kind used for oil or gas pipelines is also not included in this order.
    Imports of the products covered by this order are currently 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
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 HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of these proceedings is 
dispositive.

Amendment of Final Results

    On April 30, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the final results of its antidumping duty administrative 
review on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico (66 FR 
21311). This review covered one manufacturer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise, Tuberia Nacional S.A. de C.V. (``TUNA''). The period of 
review (``POR'') is November 1, 1998 through October 31, 1999.
    On April 24, 2001, we received a submission from Allied Tube and 
Conduit Corporation and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively, 
``Petitioners'') alleging a clerical error in the final results of this 
antidumping duty administrative review. On April 23, we received a 
submission from TUNA alleging two clerical errors. Petitioners filed 
rebuttal comments on April 30, 2001. The clerical error allegation and 
rebuttal comments were filed in a timely fashion.
    Comment 1: Petitioners state that the Department committed a coding 
error and inadvertently omitted some of the physical code 
characteristics in its model match instructions. By leaving some of the 
codes for various physical characteristics out of the model match 
hierarchy, petitioners believe that some sales observations reported by 
TUNA were not used for matching purposes. Petitioners urge that the 
Department place the proper physical code characteristics in the model 
match program.
    Department's Position: After a review of petitioners' allegation, 
we agree with petitioners and have corrected our model match program. 
See Analysis Memorandum dated June XX, 2001 for the corrections.
    Comment 2: Respondent TUNA claims that the Department made a 
clerical error in the calculation of the level of trade adjustment. 
Rather than increasing the prices for sales made at a different level 
of trade, TUNA asserts that the Department should have reduced these 
prices. TUNA states that the error is based on a misreading of the 
Pattern of Price Difference program run by the Department. TUNA urges 
that the Department change the programming language to correct this 
error.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent and have corrected 
the programming language in the margin calculation program. See 
Analysis Memorandum for the programming changes.
    Comment 3: Respondent TUNA states that the Department made a 
clerical error with regard to matching sales and level of trade. 
According to TUNA, the Department matched sales in the United States to 
home market sales in an incorrect sequence. TUNA states that the 
Department's methodology first matched identical sales at the same 
level of trade, and then matched similar sales at the same level of 
trade. Only if matches were not found at the same level of trade did 
the methodology look for identical matches at the next level of trade. 
TUNA argues that the Department should match identical sales regardless 
of the level of trade before moving to similar matches.
    Petitioners note that the question of segregation by level of trade 
prior to matching is a policy decision involving the Department's 
interpretation of the statute and regulations. Therefore, petitioners 
argue, the issue is not an ``error in addition, subtraction, or other 
arithmetic function'' under 19 CFR 351.224(f) and cannot be permitted 
as a clerical error change. With regard to the policy decision itself, 
petitioners state that while the Department is generally required to 
seek identical matches prior to using similar matches under 19 U.S.C. 
1677(16), the Department does segregate sales before making 
comparisons. Petitioners cite to the Department's segregation of sales 
based on date of sale, and that the Department matches sales made 
within a contemporaneous month.
    Department's Position: We agree with respondent that we made a 
clerical error in implementing our level of trade methodology; however, 
we disagree with respondent regarding the extent and nature of the 
error. In the Department's preliminary determination, we determined 
that EP sales in the United States all occurred at one level of trade. 
CEP sales, however, were determined to have occurred at a distinct 
level of trade. Consequently, we matched EP sales to identical or 
similar home market sales to the extent possible at the same level of 
trade. For CEP sales, we matched these to home market sales without 
distinguishing between home market levels of trade and granted a CEP 
offset. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination, 
November 29, 2000.
    In the final determination, we determined that both EP and CEP 
sales in the United States were at the same level of trade. We also 
determined that there were two levels of trade in the home market, one 
of which was the same as the level of trade for both EP and CEP sales 
in the United States. Consequently, with regard to matching sales, we 
stated that ``For sales to the United States, the Department attempted 
to match these sales to all home market sales which were assigned a 
level of trade of ``1,'' and granted a level of trade adjustment if any 
U.S. sales matched to the second level of trade. We derived the level 
of trade adjustment by running a pattern of price comparison for sales 
in the home market.'' See Analysis Memorandum for the Final 
Determination, April 11, 2001 (page 4).
    Our examination of the margin calculation program for the final 
determination indicates that the program did not follow the policy 
outlined in the Department's final determination analysis memorandum. 
While the Department correctly matched EP sales in the United States to 
identical or similar home market sales to the extent possible at the 
same level of trade, it continued the matching practice used in the 
preliminary determination and matched CEP sales in the United States to 
home market sales without distinguishing between the two home market 
levels of trade. The program should have accounted for CEP matches at 
different levels of trade, as stated in the final determination 
analysis memorandum.
    19 CFR 351.224(f) states that a ministerial error is ``an error in 
addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error 
resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any 
other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers 
ministerial.'' The failure of

[[Page 37456]]

the margin calculation program to carry out the Department's stated 
policy adopted in the final determination analysis memorandum is 
clearly an unintentional error. Therefore, we have corrected the margin 
calculation program so that both EP and CEP sales in the United States 
are compared to identical or similar home market sales to the extent 
possible at the same level of trade. See Analysis Memorandum for 
details of the programming changes.

Amended Final Results

    As a result of our review and the correction of the ministerial 
errors described above, we have determined that the following margin 
exists:

                  Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                margin  (in
                                                               percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuberia Nacional...........................................         2.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service 
(``Customs'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated 
exporter/importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the total 
dumping margins calculated for the U.S. sales to the importer by the 
total entered value of these sales. This rate will be used for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on all entries of the subject 
merchandise by that importer during the POR. The Department's decision 
applies to all entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by 
TUNA, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
November 1, 1998 and on or before October 31, 1999.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for TUNA will be the rate shown above; (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, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (``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 these or any previous reviews conducted by the 
Department, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate, 
which is 36.62 percent.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 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: July 10, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-17973 Filed 7-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P