[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57570-57574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23079]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-825]


Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, From Korea: 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a timely request, properly filed, from Shinho 
Steel Co., Ltd. (Shinho Steel), the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') is conducting a new shipper review under the antidumping 
duty order on oil country tubular goods, other than drill pipe (OCTG), 
from Korea for the period August 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001. In 
response to requests from Shinho Steel and SeAH Steel Corporation 
(SeAH), the Department is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods, other than drill 
pipe (``OCTG''), from Korea. Shinho Steel subsequently withdrew its 
request for an administrative review. The period of review (POR) for 
the administrative review for SeAH is August 1, 2000 through July 31, 
2001. The preliminary results are listed below in the section entitled 
``Preliminary Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Gilgunn or Scott Lindsay, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4236 or (202) 482-0780, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations are to the provisions of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).

Background

    On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea (60 FR 41058). 
the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Korea has an August anniversary 
date and a February semi-annual anniversary date. On February 28, 2001, 
the Department received a timely request, properly filed, for a new 
shipper review from Shinho Steel in accordance with section 
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(c)(2) of the Department's 
regulations.
    On April 9, 2001, the Department initiated this new shipper review 
of Shinho Steel for the period August 1, 2000 through February 28, 
2001. See Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, From Korea: 
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Administrative Review, 66 FR 
18438 (April 9, 2001). On August 31, 2001, the Department received 
timely requests from SeAH and Shinho Steel to conduct an administrative 
review pursuant to section 351.213(b)(2) of the Department's 
regulations. We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping 
duty administrative review on OCTG on October 2, 2001 (66 FR 49925).
    On January 22, 2002, Shinho Steel, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.214(j)(3), agreed to waive the time limits applicable to its new 
shipper review so that the Department might conduct its new shipper 
review concurrently with the 2000/2001 administrative review of OCTG 
from Korea. On February 6, 2002, we aligned the deadlines for Shinho 
Steel's new shipper review with the deadlines of the 2000/2001 
administrative review. See Oil Country Tubular Goods Other Than Drill 
Pipe, From Korea: Postponement of Time Limits for Preliminary Results 
of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 5563 (February 6, 2002).
    The Department subsequently determined it was impracticable to 
complete the administrative review within the standard time frame, and 
extended the deadline for completion of both the antidumping duty 
administrative review and consequently, the aligned new shipper review. 
See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 
Shipper Review, 67 FR 30357 (May 6, 2002).

Period of Review

    Pursuant to section 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the standard period of 
review (POR) in a new shipper proceeding initiated in the month 
immediately following the semiannual anniversary month is the six-month 
period immediately preceding the semi-annual anniversary month. Shinho 
Steel requested that the Department extend the normal six-month period 
by one month. The Department's regulations provide it with the 
discretion to expand the normal POR to include an entry and sale to an 
unaffiliated customer in the United States of subject merchandise if 
the expansion of the period would likely not prevent the completion of 
the review within the time limits set forth in Sec. 351.214(i). See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comment, 61 FR 7308, 7318 (February 
27, 1996); Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 
27296, 27319-20 (May 19, 1997). See also 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii).
    Because we determined that the expansion of the period will not 
likely prevent the completion of the review within the prescribed time 
limits, we expanded the semi-annual review period by one month. 
Therefore, the POR for Shinho Steel's new shipper review has been 
defined as August 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001.

Rescission, In Part, of Administrative Review

    Both SeAH and Shinho Steel requested an administrative review. 
Petitioners did not request an administrative review of any company. On 
October 2, 2001, Shinho Steel withdrew its request for an 
administrative review. The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1) provide that a party may withdraw its request for review 
within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation 
or the requested review. Shinho Steel withdrew its request for an 
administrative review within the 90-day period. Therefore, because 
there were no other requests for an administrative review of Shinho 
Steel, we are rescinding our administrative review with respect to 
Shinho Steel.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered by this order are OCTG, hollow steel products 
of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, 
of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), 
whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American 
Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API specifications, whether 
finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG 
products). This

[[Page 57571]]

scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or 
more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this order are 
currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 
7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 
7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 
7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 
7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 
7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 
7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 
7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 
7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 
7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 
7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 
7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 
7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 
7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the 
scope of this review.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Shinho Steel in the new shipper review following standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturers facilities and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. See Verification of Sales Information submitted by 
Shinho Steel Corporation (``Shinho'') in the New Shipper Review of Oil 
Country Tubular Goods (``OCTG'') from Korea, dated July 1, 2002. 
Verification of Costs of Shinho Steel Co., Ltd, in the New Shipper 
Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea. 
dated July 1, 2002. This verification also included on-site 
verification at Shinho America's offices. The report for this portion 
at verification will be issued shortly.

New Shipper Status

    Based on the questionnaire responses received from Shinho Steel, 
and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that this 
company has met the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the 
POR. We have determined that Shinho Steel made its first sale or 
shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, 
that these sales were bona fide sales, and that Shinho Steel was not 
affiliated with any exporter or producer that previously shipped to the 
United States.

Date of Sale

    It is the Department's practice normally to use the invoice date as 
the date of sale. We may, however, use a date other than the invoice 
date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of 
sale. See section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations; see also 
Preamble to Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 
FR 27296, 27348-50.
    For its U.S. sales, Shinho Steel reported the date of shipment as 
the date of sale. Shinho Steel reported the invoice date as the date of 
sale for its third country sales. Shinho Steel's invoice date for its 
third country sales is the same date on which the goods were shipped to 
the unaffiliated customer. Shinho Steel has stated the the dates of 
sale reported in both markets best reflect the dates on which the 
material terms of the transaction were set. The Department found no 
information at verification that indicates that another date better 
reflects that date on which the material terms of sale were 
established. Therefore, we are preliminarily using the dates of sale 
reported by Shinho Steel.
    SeAH reported two channels of distribution for its U.S. sales. For 
U.S. channel 1 SeAH reported the date of invoice as the date of sales 
since ``the invoice was the first written documentation finalizing the 
material terms of sale.'' For U.S. channel 2, SeAH reported the 
shipment date as the date of sale since: (1) The material terms of sale 
sometimes change between the date of the written purchase order and the 
invoice date; and (2) the shipment date was always prior to the date of 
invoice. As such, SeAH has reported that date of shipment best reflects 
the date on which the material terms of sale for its channel 2 sales 
are established. For its third country sales, SeAH reported the 
purchase order date as date of sale. The Department is preliminarily 
using the dates of sale reported by SeAH.

Transactions Reviewed

    Shinho Steel produced OCTG in Korea and shipped it to the United 
States. Shinho Steel's affiliate, Shinho America Inc. (Shinho America), 
was the importer of record for all U.S. sales of subject merchandise. 
All of Shinho Steel's U.S. sales are classified as constructed export 
price (CEP) sales (see ``Constructed Export Price'' section below).
    SeAH produced OCTG in Korea and shipped it to the United States. 
SeAH's affiliate Pusan Pipe America, Inc. (PPA), was the importer of 
record for all U.S. sales. All of SeAH's U.S. sales are classified as 
CEP sales (see ``Constructed Export Price'' section below). The 
Department's questionnaire instructed the respondent to report CEP 
sales made after importation if the dates of sale fell within the POR 
(see page C-1 of the Department's October 9, 2001, Questionnaire). We 
reviewed U.S. sales that involved subject merchandise that had entered 
the United States and had been placed in the physical inventory of 
SeAH's U.S. affiliate during the POR. The questionnaire also instructed 
the respondent to report CEP sales made prior to importation when the 
entry dates fell within the POR. Consequently, we have limited our U.S. 
database to these sets of transactions.

Comparison Market

    The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by 
comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison market sales to U.S. 
sales. An exporting country is not considered a viable comparison 
market if the aggregate quantity of sales of subject merchandise to 
that market amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales 
of subject merchandise into the United Stats during the POR. See 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.404.
    For both Shinho Steel and SeAH, the aggregate quantity of sales of 
subject merchandise in Korea during the POR amounted to less than five 
percent of each company's quantity of sales of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. As such, we preliminarily determine 
that Korea is not a viable comparison market for either Shinho Steel or 
SeAH.
    According to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the price of 
sales to a third country can be used as the basis for normal value only 
if such price is representative, if the aggregate quantity (or, where 
appropriate, value) of sales to that country is at least five percent 
of the quantity (or value) of total sales to the United States, and if 
the Department does not determine that the particular market situation 
in that country prevents proper comparison with the export price or 
constructed export price.
    Shinho Steel sold subject merchandise during the POR to Indonesia, 
its largest third country market. However, the sales to Indonesia,

[[Page 57572]]

on both a value and a volume basis, were less than the five percent 
threshold defined in section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.404. As such, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we 
are using constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV for Shinho Steel's 
sales for purposes of these preliminary results. See ``Normal Value 
Comparisons'' section below.
    The only viable third country market to which SeAH sold subject 
merchandise during the POR was Jordan. SeAH's sales to Jordan, on both 
a value and a volume basis, were greater than the five percent 
threshold defined in section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.404. In addition, there is no evidence on the record supporting a 
particular market situation in Jordan that would not permit a proper 
comparison of third country (Jordanian) and U.S. prices. Therefore, for 
SeAH, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the 
preliminary results are based on the price at which the foreign like 
product was first sold for consumption in the third market, in the 
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to 
the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price 
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) sale.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Shinho Steel's or SeAH's sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at less than normal value, 
we compared each company's CEP to the NV, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated 
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual 
U.S. transaction prices.

Constructed Export Price

    We preliminarily determine that all of SeAH's U.S. sales were made 
``in the United States'' by PPA, SeAH's U.S. affiliate, on behalf of 
SeAH within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act. We also 
preliminarily determine that all of Shinho Steel's U.S. sales were made 
``in the United States'' by Shinho America, Shinho Steel's U.S. 
affiliate, on behalf of Shinho Steel within the meaning of section 
772(b) of the Act. As such, both SeAH's and Shinho Steel's U.S. sales 
should be treated as CEP transactions. See AK Steel Corp. v. United 
States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    Shinho Steel reported one channel of distribution for its U.S. 
sales. For Shinho Steel, the starting point for the calculation of CEP 
was Shinho America's ex-warehouse dock, duty paid, price to its 
unaffiliated customers in the United States.
    SeAH reported two channels of distribution for its U.S. sales: CEP 
sales of further manufactured merchandise from inventory and CEP sales 
shipped directly from Korea. For SeAH's channel 1 U.S. sales, the 
starting point for the calculation of CEP was either the delivered 
price or the ex-warehouse price to the unaffiliated customer in the 
United States. For SeAH's channel 2 U.S. sales, the starting point for 
calculation of CEP was the duty delivered price to the unaffiliated 
U.S. customer.
    We identified the appropriate starting price for both Shinho Steel 
and SeAH by adjusting for early payment discounts. Where applicable, we 
made deductions from SeAH's and Shinho Steel's starting price for 
movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. wharfage, and U.S. customs duties in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of 
the Act, we also deducted credit expenses and indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs. In accordance with 
section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added duty drawback to the starting 
price. We verified that Shinho Steel performed no further manufacturing 
on U.S. sales. Finally, for Shinho we deducted an amount of profit 
allocated Shinho America's selling activities in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    For SeAH, where appropriate, we also deducted the cost of further 
manufacturing in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. This 
deduction for further manufacturing was based on the fees charged by 
unaffiliated U.S. processors. SeAH indicated that although the further 
processors' invoices did not have separate line items for applicable 
further manufacturing costs (e.g., processing, materials, overhead, 
SGA, etc.), the further processor's invoice covered all these costs. We 
note that SeAH did not report a separate SGA expense related to further 
processing. Instead, SeAH included all of the expenses incurred by PPA, 
including the SGA expense associated with PPA's dealings with further 
manufacturing, as part of its indirect selling expenses incurred in the 
United States (INDIRSU). We have accepted SeAH's reported SGA since 
even if the portion of PPA's SGA expenses associated with further 
manufacturing were assigned to further manufacturing, all SGA expenses 
including those assigned to further manufacturing would be deducted 
from CEP. In addition, those SGA expenses assigned to further 
manufacturing would also be included in the CEP offset cap as defined 
in section 351.412(f)(2) of the Department's regulations. Finally, we 
deducted an amount of profit allocated PPA's selling activities, 
including further manufacturing related expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Model Match

    In making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products described in the ``Scope of the 
Antidumping Duty Order`` section of this notice, sold in the comparison 
market in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the 
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics listed in 
Appendix V of the Department's October 9, 2001 antidumping 
questionnaire.

B. Constructed Value

    Shinho Steel: We used CV as the basis for NV because there was no 
viable comparison market in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We 
included Shinho Steel's cost of materials and fabrication (including 
packing), SG&A expenses, and profit. See section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 
Act. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 
expenses on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. 
For profit, we calculated rates derived from Shinho Steel's year 2000 
financial statements.
    SeAH: We used CV as the basis for NV when there were no usable 
contemporaneous sales of subject merchandise in the comparison market 
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. We calculated CV in 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included SeAH's cost of 
materials and fabrication (including packing), SG&A expenses, and 
profit. See section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of

[[Page 57573]]

the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale 
of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for 
consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we relied on 
SeAH's reported weighted-average third country selling expenses.

C. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    Where appropriate, for comparison to CEP, we made adjustments to NV 
by deducting Korean inland freight from the factory to the port, 
brokerage and handling, terminal charges, wharfage, international ocean 
freight and packing, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act, and direct selling expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in physical 
characteristics of merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 
the Act.
    Finally, the Department added duty drawback to third-country prices 
for comparison to duty-inclusive cost of production and U.S. price. See 
e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 13369 (March 17, 1999).

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (``LOT'') of the U.S. sales. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. The Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the statute unambiguously 
requires Commerce to deduct the selling expenses set forth in section 
772(d) from the CEP starting price prior to performing its LOT 
analysis. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3rd 1301, 
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Consequently, the Department will continue to 
adjust the CEP, pursuant to section 772(d), prior to performing the LOT 
analysis, as articulated by the Department's regulations at section 
351.412. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales from 
which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.
    To determine whether comparison market NV sales are at a different 
LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process 
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
producer and unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are 
at a different level of trade and the difference affects price 
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Finally, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision). 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 17, 1997).
    In Jordan, SeAH reported only one LOT and, therefore, could not 
quantify a level of trade adjustment. SeAH contends that when the CEP 
adjustments are made, the CEP LOT is less advanced than the foreign 
market LOT, qualifying SeAH for a CEP offset. A comparison of the 
selling functions that SeAH reported for its two U.S. sales channels 
indicates that the difference in selling functions of the two channels 
was not substantial. As such, the difference in selling functions was 
insufficient to support SeAH's claim that each channel was a different 
LOT. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.412(c)(2), we find that 
SeAH has only one LOT for its sales in the United States.
    For SeAH's sales in the foreign market (i.e., the third-country 
market), the relevant transaction for the Department's analysis is 
between the SeAH and the unaffiliated Korean trading company. After 
deducting the selling expenses set forth in section 772(d) from the CEP 
starting price, SeAH's sales to Jordan are at a more advanced LOT than 
the CEP sales.
    As set forth in section 351.412(f) of the Department's regulations, 
a CEP offset will be granted where (1) normal value is compared to CEP 
sales, (2) normal value is determined at a more advanced LOT than the 
LOT of the CEP, and (3) despite that fact that the party has cooperated 
to the best of its ability, the data available do not provide an 
appropriate basis to determine whether the difference in LOT affects 
price comparability. Since the selling functions provided by PPA for 
SeAH's sales to the United States, after deducting the selling expenses 
set forth in section 772(d) from the CEP starting price, are at a 
marketing stage which is less advanced than for the SeAH's sales to 
Jordan, we preliminarily determine that sales in Jordan are being made 
at a more advanced LOT than those to the United States. Because there 
is only one level of trade in Jordan, the data available do not permit 
us to determine the extent to which this difference in LOT affects 
price comparability. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.412(f), 
we are granting SeAH a CEP offset. To calculate this offset, we 
deducted indirect selling expenses from NV to the extent of U.S. 
indirect selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 
sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Company Name Change

    On May 2, 2002, Shinho Steel informed the Department that, 
effective April 1, 2002, it had legally changed its name to Husteel Co. 
Ltd. We note that the date of the name change is after the POR. A 
changed circumstances review addressing this name change is currently 
being conducted in Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 
Korea (A-580-809). See Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 
from the Republic of Korea; Initiation of Changed Circumstances 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 41394 (June 18, 2002).

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
       Manufacturer/Exporter              Time period         (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation............    08/01/2000-07/31/2001         0.39
Shinho Steel Company..............    08/01/2000-02/28/2001         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57574]]

Cash Deposit Requirements

    If these preliminary results are not modified in the final results 
of these reviews, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this new shipper and administrative 
review for all shipments of OCTG from Korea 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 SeAH and 
Shinho Steel, the cash deposit rate will be the rates established in 
the final results of these reviews; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be 
the company-specific rate established 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 subject merchandise; 
and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, 
the cash deposit rate shall be the rate established in the LTFV 
investigation, which is 12.17 percent. See Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, 60 FR 
33561 (June 28, 1995).

Comments and Hearing

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with these preliminary results of reviews within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's 
regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the 
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must 
submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public 
hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent 
practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the 
hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within 
five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal 
presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    The Department will issue the final results of the new shipper 
review concurrently with the final results of the administrative 
review. See ``Background'' section of this notice, above.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of these reviews, 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 these reviews. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service 
within 15 days of publication of the final results of reviews. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will 
direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates 
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each 
of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these review 
periods. 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.
    These reviews and notice are issued in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 
1677(f)(i)(1)).

    Dated: August 26, 2002.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-23079 Filed 9-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M