[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25335-25339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11746]


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

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

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

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 August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.
    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. Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) to assess no antidumping duties on 
the subject merchandise that was exported by Silcotub and entered 
during the POR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Claessens or Monica Gallardo, 
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-
5451 or (202) 482-3147, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    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 29, 2002, Silcotub requested an 
administrative review. On August 30, 2002, United States Steel 
Corporation (U.S. Steel), a domestic producer of seamless pipe and an 
interested party to this proceeding, also requested an administrative 
review. On September 20, 2002, the Department initiated the current 
administrative review. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 
Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 67 FR 60210 (September 25, 
2002). Since the initiation of this administrative review, the 
following events have occurred:
    On October 21, 2002, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
Silcotub. We received questionnaire responses from Silcotub on November 
22 and December 13, 2002. We issued a supplemental questionnaire on 
January 22, 2003, to which we received responses on February 25 and 
February 28, 2003. On April 4, 2003, U.S. Steel requested that the 
Department extend the deadline for the preliminary results. The 
deadline was not extended.

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 are 
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 are 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.

[[Page 25336]]

    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 use 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 BCBP 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 
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 
BCBP purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to 
this scope is dispositive.

Duty Absorption

    On October 25, 2002, U.S. Steel requested that the Department 
determine whether or not antidumping duties had been absorbed during 
the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the 
Act) provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an 
administrative review initiated two or four years after the publication 
of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a 
foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the 
United States through an affiliated importer. In this case, Silcotub 
sold to the United States through an importer that is affiliated with 
Silcotub within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act.
    Because this review was initiated two years after the publication 
of the antidumping duty order, we will make a duty absorption 
determination in this segment of the proceeding. Because we 
preliminarily find an absence of dumping in this review, there is no 
basis under the statute for a finding that any antidumping duties have 
been absorbed by Silcotub or its affiliated U.S. importer.\1\ If these 
results remain unchanged in the final results of this review, we will 
continue to find that no duties were absorbed by Silcotub or its 
affiliated U.S. importer during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, 
Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 51375 (October 9, 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    Romania's designation as a NME country remained in effect until 
January 1, 2003.\2\ We are therefore treating

[[Page 25337]]

Romania as an NME country for purposes of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 12672, 12673 (March 
17, 2003), the Department reviewed the non-market economy status of 
Romania and determined to reclassify Romania as a market economy for 
purposes of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings, 
pursuant to section 771(18)(A) of the Act, effective January 1, 
2003. See Memorandum from Lawrence Norton, Import Policy Analyst, to 
Joseph Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure 
Pipe from Romania--Non-Market Economy Status Review (March 10, 
2003), placed on the record of this administrative review. The March 
10, 2003 decision with respect to Romania's NME status provided 
that:
    This finding will apply to all future administrative proceedings 
covering periods of investigation or review that fall after January 
1, 2003. Where a proceeding's period of investigation or review 
begins before January 1, 2003, but ends after that date, the 
Department will use the standard market economy methodology if it 
determines that a sufficient period of time has passed so that 
adequate market economy data is available. In addition, the U.S. 
countervailing duty law will apply now to Romania where the 
proceeding at issue involves an adequate period of investigation 
after this effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
subject merchandise subject to review in a non-market economy (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 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 May 5, 2003 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.

Constructed Export Price

    For all 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. We calculated 
CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse or delivered prices from 
Silcotub's U.S. affiliate 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, BCBP 
duties, U.S. brokerage and handling, and other U.S. transportation 
expenses such as wharfage, stevedoring, and surveying. For the 
deductions of foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and 
handling, we used Egyptian surrogate values because these services were 
provided by Romanian companies and paid for in Romanian lei. 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.
    As noted above, the Department is treating Romania as an NME 
country for purposes of this review. Furthermore, information available 
on the record of this review does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home market prices, third country prices, or CV under section 
773(a) of the Act. Thus, the Department calculated NV in this review 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 May 5, 2003, 
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 data were 
not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted 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 each 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 decision of the 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    We valued material inputs and packing material (i.e., where 
applicable, plastic caps, lacquer, and ink) by

[[Page 25338]]

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., billet, 
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, although billets were purchased from both a 
market-economy supplier and non-market-economy supplier, we are valuing 
all billets based on the price for the market-economy purchase. 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 the 
remainder is purchased from an NME supplier.
    For the cold-drawn products, we have adjusted the amount of billet 
inputs toaccount more accurately for combined yield loss of the 
producer. We have adjusted the scrap offset accordingly.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum From Martin Claessens to the File, Analysis 
Memorandum for Preliminary Results (May 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued labor using the method described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) 
of the Department's regulations. For a complete analysis of surrogate 
values, see the May 5, 2003, 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 under 
``Trade Information Center.'' See www.web.ita.doc.gov/ticwebsite/neweb.nsf/. We based the value of natural gas in Egypt on a published 
article that shows the price at which the Government of Egypt purchased 
natural gas, also used in the final results of the previous 
administrative review and placed on the record of this review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 68 FR 12672 (March 17, 2003) and 
corresponding Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 3. See also 
Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 comparable 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 in Egypt 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, and have been placed on the 
record of this review.
    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 August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Exporter/manufacturer                  margin percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silcotub............................................                0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, or the first workday thereafter. 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, or the first workday thereafter. 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. Parties are also requested to submit such arguments, and 
public versions thereof, with an electronic version on a diskette.

Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and the BCBP 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 to the BCBP 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 
BCBP 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 
BCBP 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 subject 
merchandise exported by 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 companies not covered in this 
review but covered in

[[Page 25339]]

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 exporter received a company-specific rate; 
and (3) if the exporter is not 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 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). 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 with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 5, 2003.
Joseph Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-11746 Filed 5-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S