[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45666-45667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21835]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-502]


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand; Notice 
of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in 
Accordance With Final Court Decision

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

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review in 
Accordance with Final Court Decision on Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes from Thailand.

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

SUMMARY: On March 22, 2001, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) 
affirmed the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) remand 
determination of the final results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 
from Thailand for the period March 1, 1997 to February 28, 1998, and 
entered a judgement order. As no further appeals have been filed and

[[Page 45667]]

there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this action, we 
are amending our final results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Enforcement 
Group III, Office VII, Room 7866, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations 
to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 
CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    On October 21, 1999, the Department published its final results for 
the administrative review of Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes from Thailand for the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 
1998. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 56759 
(October 21, 1999) (Final Results).
    In the Final Results, the Department used, as facts available, a 
simple average of respondent's, Saha Thai's, claimed invoice amounts 
for cash and guarantee-based duty drawback to calculate Saha Thai's 
duty drawback. The methodology applied in the Final Results increased 
the total amount of duty drawback claimed by respondent.
    Following publication of the Final Results, Allied Tube and Conduit 
Corp., petitioner in this case, filed a lawsuit with the CIT 
challenging the Department's date of sale and duty drawback 
determinations in the Final Results.
    On January 18, 2001, the CIT remanded the above-referenced 
proceeding to the Department for reconsideration of the following 
issue: (1) to explain why the Department's duty drawback methodology, 
which employed facts available, is consistent with the objectives of 
the facts available provision, 19 U.S.C. 1677e(a) (Section 776(a) of 
the Act), and accounts for gaps in respondent's information; or 
alternatively, to calculate a new duty drawback adjustment which is 
consistent with this objective. In its opinion, the CIT affirmed the 
Department's determination that respondent was entitled to a duty 
drawback adjustment to its export price, and also supported the 
Department's use of facts otherwise available in determining the 
appropriate adjustment. However, the CIT stated that the Department did 
not explain how its use of facts available corrects the problem of 
reliance on Saha Thai's claimed adjustment, i.e., excessive drawback 
adjustment from inclusion of bank guarantee fees, and drawback 
adjustment exceeding the actual amounts rebated. See Allied Tube and 
Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (CIT 2001).
    As noted above, in the Final Results, the Department's use of a 
simple average in calculating a facts available duty drawback amount 
resulted in an increase in the total amount of duty drawback claimed by 
the respondent. The Department had intended through the use of this 
approach, to apply neutral facts available by decreasing those duty 
drawback amounts that were above the calculated average. However, 
because the invoice tonnage amounts were not taken into account in the 
calculation of the average, the Department's methodology resulted in an 
overall increase in the total duty drawback amount claimed by the 
respondent.
    Therefore, for the Draft Results of Redetermination, we 
reconsidered our methodology in accordance with the CIT's order and 
determined that the simple average methodology applied did not 
adequately function as a modified duty drawback adjustment for 
respondent. Thus, the Department recalculated the duty drawback amount 
to be applied to the relevant invoices by weight-averaging the reported 
cash and guarantee-based duty drawback amounts by invoice quantity in 
order to more appropriately apply facts available to this duty drawback 
calculation. This results in a weighted-average figure for duty 
drawback which is less than the previously-calculated figure. This 
methodology properly accounts for the tonnages in each invoice and 
results in a more appropriate application of facts available because 
the total duty drawback amount is not increased above that which the 
respondent reported. The methodology is consistent with the facts 
available provision because, although it need not be the ``best 
available information,'' Statement of Administrative Action at 869, 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4198, based on evidence on the record 
the use of a weighted average, as opposed to a simple average, more 
appropriately accounts for the gap in respondent's information, thus 
promoting greater accuracy in the margin calculation.
    On February 14, 2001, the Department issued its Draft Results of 
Redetermination to the plaintiff and defendant-intervenor for comment. 
Neither party submitted comments to the Department. Therefore, the 
Final Results of Redetermination were identical to the Draft Results of 
Redetermination.
    On March 22, 2001, the CIT affirmed the Department's remand 
results, upholding the use of a weighted-average of the claimed duty 
drawback as facts available. See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. 
United States, No. 99-11-00715, 2001 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 40; Slip. 
Op. 01-03 (March 22, 2001).
    We have recalculated the dumping margin for respondent based upon 
the changes set forth above.

Amendment to Final Results of Review

    Because no further appeals have been filed and there is now a final 
and conclusive decision in the court proceeding, effective as of the 
publication date of this notice, we are amending the Final Results and 
establishing the following revised weight-averaged dumping margin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Amended Final
                         Company                          Results 3/1/97-
                                                              2/28/98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd.......................           9.84%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``All Others Rate'' was not affected by the Final Results of 
Redetermination and remains at 15.67 percent as determined in the LTFV 
investigation.
    The Department has also revised the importer specific duty 
assessment rates (see Final Results) and will instruct the U.S. Customs 
Service (Customs) to assess these revised antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to Customs.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
751(a)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 21, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-21835 Filed 8-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P