[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57388-57393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22995]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-485-805]
Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line
and Pressure Pipe From Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Postponement of Final Results
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub), a
producer/exporter of subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy
seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania.
The period of review (POR) is February 4, 2000, through July 31, 2001.
We preliminarily find that sales have not been made below normal
value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs
Service to assess no antidumping duties on the subject merchandise
exported by Silcotub and entered during the POR.
The Department also is now conducting an inquiry into Romania's
status as a nonmarket economy country under section 771(18)(C)(ii) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok, Tisha Loeper-Viti, or
Martin Claessens, Group II, Office 5, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-4162, (202) 482-07425, or (202) 482-5451, respectively.
For further information regarding the analysis of Romania's
nonmarket economy country status under the antidumping and
countervailing duty laws, contact George Smolik or Lawrence Norton at
(202) 482-1843 and (202) 482-1579, 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 (the
Department) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351
(2001).
Case History
On August 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty
order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard,
line and pressure pipe from Romania. See Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line
and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000) (Amended
Final Determination). On August 1, 2001, the Department published in
the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request administrative
review of antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding or
suspended investigation. See Notice of Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 66 FR 39729 (August 1, 2001). On
August 30, 2001, Silcotub requested an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Romania. On October 1,
2001, the Department initiated the current administrative review. See
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 49924
(October 1, 2001). Since the initiation of this administrative review,
the following events have occurred:
On October 18, 2001, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to
Silcotub. We received the questionnaire responses from Silcotub on
November 15 and December 7, 2001. We issued supplemental questionnaires
on December 13, 2001, January 10 and April 5, 2002, to which we
received responses on January 10, January 31, and April 19, 2002,
respectively.
On May 8, 2002, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of these preliminary results until no later than May 24,
2002. See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,
Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Extension of Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 30874 (May 8, 2002).
On May 28, 2002, the Department determined that additional time was
necessary to consider the proper surrogate valuation of the factors of
production and also to consider a request from the Romanian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, submitted to the
[[Page 57389]]
Department on May 10, 2002, to revoke Romania's nonmarket economy
status. As such, it was not possible for the Department to complete the
preliminary analysis in this review by May 24, 2002. Therefore, the
Department fully extended the time limit for completion of the
preliminary results until no later than September 3, 2002. See Certain
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure
Pipe from Romania: Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 36856 (May 28, 2002).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are seamless carbon and alloy
(other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and
redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106,
ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API
5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below,
regardless of application. The scope of the order also includes all
products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and
meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of
specification. Specifically included within the scope of the order is
seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches
(114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness,
manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain
end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or
surface finish.
The seamless pipes subject to the order is currently classifiable
under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00,
7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24,
7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60,
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and
7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS).
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes
are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals,
chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in
industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated
pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of
external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-
106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees
Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to
ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels
exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in
the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53
specification and generally are not intended for high temperature
service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and
gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units,
automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes
(depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures
but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally
low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may
be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and
natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are
produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe
for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of
water.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-
106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid
maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories,
manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by
meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required
tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors
sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a
single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or
quadruple certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries,
petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in
power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in
some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator
lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this
product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial
applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market
for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used
in some boiler applications.
Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or ``hollow profiles'' of
carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/
hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold
under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM
A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.
The scope of the order includes all seamless pipe meeting the
physical parameters described above and produced to one of the
specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the
exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or
not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and
pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining
characteristics of the scope of the order. Therefore, seamless pipes
meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-
53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-
795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard,
line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific
exclusions discussed below.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe
which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be
used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include
ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523,
ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard,
line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific
exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of
the order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the order is boiler tubing
and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53,
ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795,
and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or
pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG
are excluded from the scope of the order, if covered by the scope of
another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by
such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this
scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.
With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department
will not instruct Customs to require end-use certification until such
time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the
Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products
are being used in a covered application. If such information is
provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s)
(or
[[Page 57390]]
specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are
being used in covered applications as described above. For example, if,
based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to
the A-161 specification is being used in a standard, line or pressure
application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that
specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to
certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves
necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers
who export such products to the United States to provide such
certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to
this scope is dispositive.
Nonmarket Economy Status
As indicated above, on May 10, 2002, the Department received a
letter from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting a
review of the status of Romania as a nonmarket economy (NME) country,
either as a free-standing investigation or in the context of this
administrative review. In response to this request, the Department is
conducting an inquiry into Romania's status as an NME country in the
context of the instant review. See section 771(18)(C)(ii) of the Act.
The Department has treated Romania as a NME country in all past
antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. See, e.g.,
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure
Pipe from Romania, 65 FR 39125 (June 23, 2000); and Notice of Final
Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Romania, 66 FR 49625 (September 28,
2001). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
As part of its review of Romania's NME status, the Department
invites public comment with respect to Romania on the factors listed in
section 771(18)(B) of the Act, which the Department must take into
account in making a market economy/NME determination: (i) The extent to
which the currency of the foreign country is convertible into the
currency of other countries; (ii) the extent to which wage rates in the
foreign country are determined by free bargaining between labor and
management; (iii) the extent to which joint ventures or other
investments by firms of other foreign countries are permitted in the
foreign country; (iv) the extent of government ownership or control of
the means of production; (v) the extent of government control over
allocation of resources and over price and output decisions of
enterprises; and (vi) such other factors as the administering authority
considers appropriate.
The deadline for submission of comments regarding Romania's NME
status will be 45 days after the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. All comments should be filed at the Department's
Central Records Unit (CRU), located at the address listed below.
Rebuttal comments may be submitted up to 30 days after the date the
initial comments are due. Each person submitting comments should
include his or her name and address, and give reasons for any
recommendation. To facilitate their consideration by the Department,
comments should be submitted in the following format: (1) Begin each
comment on a separate page; (2) concisely state the issue identified
and discussed in the comment and include any supporting documentation
in exhibits or appendices; (3) provide a brief summary of the comment
(a maximum of 3 sentences) and label this section ``Summary of
Comment;'' (4) provide an index or table of contents; and (5) include
the case number A-485-805 in the top right hand corner of the
submission. To simplify the processing and distribution of comments,
the Department requires the submission of documents in electronic form
accompanied by an original and six copies in paper form. We require
that documents filed in electronic form be on DOS formatted 3.5 inch
diskettes and prepared in either WordPerfect 9 format or a format that
the WordPerfect program can convert and import into WordPerfect 9.
Please submit comments in separate files on the diskette. Comments
received on diskette will be made available to the public on the
Internet at Import Administration's Website, http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
Paper copies will be available for reading and photocopying in the CRU,
Room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Any questions concerning file
formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other file
requirements should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import
Administration Webmaster, (202) 482-0866.
After reviewing all comments and rebuttal comments, the Department
will determine if a public hearing on the NME country issue is
warranted, if one is requested in the initial or rebuttal comments on
this issue, and, if so, the Department will announce a place and time
for that hearing.
Separate Rates
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control,
both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether
an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in
light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China,
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon
Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to
separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence
of government control over exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact
(de facto).
Absence of De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) Any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) Any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers,
56 FR at 20589.
Absence of De Facto Control
A de facto analysis of absence of government control over exports
is based on four factors--whether the respondent: (1) Sets its own
export prices independently of the government and other exporters; (2)
retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses;
(3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the
selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59
[[Page 57391]]
FR at 22587; see also Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
We have determined, according to the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, that evidence on the record demonstrates
an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect
to exports by Silcotub. Silcotub is a private joint stock commercial
company organized under the Romanian Commercial Companies Law, Law No.
31/1990, as amended. Silcotub is limited only by its articles of
incorporation and bylaws. Specifically, the information on the record
shows that Silcotub is autonomous in selecting its management,
negotiating and signing contracts, setting its own export prices and
retaining its own profits. For a complete discussion of the
Department's analysis regarding Silcotub's entitlement to a separate
rate, see the September 3, 2002, memorandum, Assignment of Separate
Rates for S.C. Silcotub S.A., which is on file in the Central Record
Unit (CRU), Room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania
Avenue and 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For certain sales made by Silcotub to the United States, we used
constructed export price (CEP) in accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after
importation of the merchandise into the United States. For Silcotub's
remaining sales to the United States, we used export price (EP), in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States
prior to importation into the United States and because the CEP
methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
We calculated EP based on the C&F prices to unaffiliated
purchasers, as appropriate. In accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act, we deducted amounts, where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and international freight. We
valued the deductions for foreign inland freight and brokerage and
handling using surrogate data based on Egyptian values. (The selection
of the surrogate country and surrogate values is explained in the
``Normal Value'' section of this notice, below.) Since ocean freight
for U.S. sales was provided by an unaffiliated carrier from a market
economy country and was paid for in a market economy currency, we
valued ocean freight using the actual charges from the market economy
country.
We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse or delivered
prices from Silcotub's U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated customers. In
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we made deductions, where
appropriate, from the starting price for CEP for foreign inland
freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine
insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage and handling, and other U.S.
transportation expenses such as wharfage, stevedoring, and surveying.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made further
deductions for the following selling expenses that related to economic
activity in the United States: credit expenses, direct selling expenses
(i.e., bank charges), and indirect selling expenses (including
inventory carrying costs). In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act, we have deducted from the starting price an amount for profit.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) The
merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value (CV) under section 773(a) of the
Act.
The Department has treated Romania as an NME country in all
previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not
permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country
prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. As discussed in the ``Nonmarket Economy
Status'' section above, since Romania's designation as a NME country
remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department, we treated
Romania as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV
by valuing the factors of production in a surrogate country.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME, and (2) are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. We chose Egypt as the surrogate
country on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 351.408(b). For
a further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the September 3,
2002, memorandum Selection of Surrogate Country. (This memorandum is on
file in the Department's CRU.)
Factors of Production
We used publicly available information from Egypt to value the
various factors of production. Because some of the Egyptian import data
were not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the data, expressed
in U.S. dollars, to the POR using the U.S. producer price index
published by the International Monetary Fund.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we valued Silcotub's
reported factors of production by multiplying them by publicly
available Egyptian values. In selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices.
We added to Egyptian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using
the reported distance from the supplier to the factory because this
distance was shorter than the distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We valued material inputs and packing material (i.e., where
applicable, steel billet, plastic caps, and ink) by Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) number, using imports statistics from the Egyptian
Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics, National
Information Center. Where a material input was purchased in a market
economy currency from a market economy supplier (i.e., lacquer, strap,
clips, and tags), we valued the input at the actual purchase price in
accordance with section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's regulations.
We note that, while lacquer was purchased from both NME and market
economy suppliers, respondent argued that the price paid to the market
economy supplier should not be used to value the factor. We disagree
and have used the actual price Silcotub paid for lacquer, in a market
economy currency, to a market economy supplier. This methodology is
consistent with section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's regulations
in that the Department will normally value the factor using the price
paid to the market economy supplier, where a portion of a factor is
purchased from a market economy and a NME supplier. We valued labor
using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) of the
[[Page 57392]]
Department's regulations. For a complete analysis of surrogate values,
see the September 3, 2002, memorandum, Factors of Production Valuation
for Preliminary Results, (Valuation Memorandum) on file in the CRU.
To value electricity, we used the 2001 electricity rates for Egypt
reported on the website of the International Trade Administration of
the Department under ``Trade Information Center.'' See http://www.web.ita.doc.gov/ticwebsite/neweb.nsf/. We based the value of
natural gas on 1998 Egyptian prices reported in Egyptian Ministerial
Decree number 1435/1997, adjusted for inflation.
We based our calculation of factory overhead and selling, general
and administrative (SG&A) expenses, as well as profit, on 1998/99
financial statements of El-Naser Steel Pipes & Fittings Co., an
Egyptian producer of products comparable to the subject merchandise.
To value truck freight rates, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for
inflation) provided by a trucking company located in Egypt. For rail
transportation, we valued rail rates using information used in Titanium
Sponge From the Republic of Kazakhstan: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 66169 (November 24,
1999), which were initially obtained from a 1999 letter from the
Egyptian International House.
For brokerage and handling, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for
inflation) provided by a trucking and shipping company located in
Alexandria, Egypt. For further details, see Valuation Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with Section 773(A)(a)
of the Act. For currency conversions involving the Egyptian pound, we
used exchange rates published by the International Monetary Fund in
International Financial Statistics. For all other conversions, we used
daily exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists
for the period February 4, 2000, through July 31, 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/manufacturer margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silcotub.................................................... 0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose its
calculations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held approximately 42 days after the publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in hearings will
be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested
parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days
after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with
each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of
the argument with an electronic version included. Parties who submit
arguments in this proceeding are requested to provide the Department
copies of the public versions on diskette.
Postponement of the Final Results
The Department has determined that it is not practicable to
complete the final results of this review within the original time
limit because of the need to evaluate Romania's NME status. Therefore,
the Department is fully extending the due date for the final results of
this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any written briefs or hearing. Accordingly, the final
results will be issued no later than 180 days after the date of
publication of this Notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment
rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service
within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will
direct the Customs Service to assess no antidumping duties on the
merchandise subject to review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the
final results, if any importer-specific assessment rate is above de
minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess duties accordingly. This
rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular
importer made during the POR.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of seamless pipe from Romania entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For Silcotub,
which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be zero if
Silcotub's rate in the final results of review continues to be less
than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but
covered in the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, the
cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the
final determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received a
company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this 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 review or the
LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 13.06 percent, the
``Romania-Wide'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See
Amended Final Determination, 65 FR 48963.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility 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 double
antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in
accordance
[[Page 57393]]
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 3, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-22995 Filed 9-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P