[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68331-68336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Sales at Less Than Fair Value.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the 
Republic of Korea with respect to Husteel Corporation, Ltd.; Hyundai 
HYSCO; and SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd. This review covers entries of 
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe into the United States during the 
period November 1, 2001, through October 31, 2002.
    We preliminarily find that, during the period of review, sales of 
certain circular non-alloy steel pipe from Korea were made below normal 
value. If the preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties. We invite 
interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. We will 
issue the final results not later than 120 days from the date of 
publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Santoboni, Scott Holland or 
Andrew McAllister, Group I, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-4194, (202) 482-1279 or (202) 482-1174, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 2, 1992, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published an antidumping duty order on circular welded 
non-alloy steel pipe (``pipe'') from Korea. (See 57 FR 49453). On 
November 1, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published a notice in the Federal Register of the opportunity for 
interested parties to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on pipe from Korea. See Notice of Opportunity to 
Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding or Suspend Investigation, 67 FR 66612 (November 1, 
2002). In November 2002, the Department received timely requests for 
review from Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation and Wheatland Tube 
Company (collectively, ``petitioners'') and from Husteel Co. Ltd. 
(``Husteel''), a Korean exporter/producer of the subject merchandise.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), we published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on December 
26, 2002, with respect to Husteel, Hyundai HYSCO (``HYSCO''), and SeAH 
Steel Corporation, Ltd. (``SeAH'') (collectively, the ``respondents''). 
See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 78772 (December 26, 2002). The period of 
review (``POR'') is November 1, 2001 through October 31, 2002.
    On January 6, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the respondents. We notified the respondents that 
they must respond to sections A, B, C and D of the antidumping duty 
questionnaire.
    On January 21, 2003, Husteel and SeAH requested that they be 
allowed to report their respective cost data on a fiscal-year basis 
rather than reporting costs for the POR. On January 30, 2003, we 
requested that the respondents demonstrate that the use of fiscal-year 
cost reporting would not be distortive. We received information from 
the respondents on the difference between fiscal-year and POR-based 
cost reporting on February 11, 2003. On February 24, 2003, we granted 
the requests and allowed Husteel and SeAH to report their costs for the 
2002 fiscal year rather than the POR.
    On January 27, 2003, the petitioners requested that the Department 
conduct verifications of the respondents' questionnaire responses. We 
received questionnaire responses from all of the respondents in 
February and March 2003. We issued supplemental questionnaires covering 
sections A through D to the respondents in May and June 2003, and 
received responses in June and July 2003. The petitioners submitted 
comments on the responses in March and July 2003. We received rebuttal 
comments from HYSCO on July 28, 2003.
    On June 6, 2003, we published an extension of the time limit for 
the completion of the preliminary results of this review to no later 
than November 30, 2003, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). See Certain Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea: Notice of Extension of Time 
Limit for 2001-2002 Administrative Review, 68 FR 33911 (June 6, 2003). 
The Department verified the sales and cost responses for each of the 
respondents during September through November 2003.
    On November 10, 2003 the petitioners argued certain information 
submitted by HYSCO at the CEP sales verification constituted new 
information and should be rejected by the Department.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm 
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface 
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, 
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes 
are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for 
the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and 
other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-
conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related 
uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm 
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is 
also included in this order.
    All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description 
outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line 
pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe 
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished 
conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative 
Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the

[[Page 68332]]

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela, 61 FR 11608 (March 21, 1996), 
pipe certified to the API 5L line-pipe specification and pipe certified 
to both the API 5L line-pipe specifications and the less-stringent ASTM 
A-53 standard-pipe specifications, which falls within the physical 
parameters as outlined above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used 
for oil and gas pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping 
duty order.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during September through 
November 2003, we verified the information provided by the respondents 
in Korea and at the U.S. sales facilities using standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' 
facilities, examination of relevant sales, cost and financial records, 
and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. The Department reported its findings from the SeAH sales 
and cost verifications conducted in Korea on November 25, 2003. See 
Memorandum to the File, ``Verification of the Sales and Cost Response 
of SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd.,'' dated November 25, 2003 (``SeAH Sales 
and Cost Verification Report''), which is on file in the CRU. The SeAH 
CEP verification report and the verification reports for Husteel and 
HYSCO will be released at a later date.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 
to the United States were made at less than normal value (``NV''), we 
compared export price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.414(c)(2), we compared individual EPs and CEPs to weighted-average 
NVs, which were calculated in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the 
Act.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced and sold by the respondents in the home market during 
the POR that fit the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section 
of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales 
to sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the 
ordinary course of trade, where possible. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home 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. 
To determine the appropriate product comparisons, we considered the 
following physical characteristics of the products in order of 
importance: grade, nominal pipe size, wall thickness, surface finish 
and end finish.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act for 
those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or 
producer outside the United States and the constructed export price 
methodology was not otherwise indicated. Husteel and HYSCO made EP 
sales during the POR. We based EP on either FOB or CNF (duty-paid) 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We identified 
the correct starting price by adjusting the reported gross unit price, 
where applicable, for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the 
starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These deductions included, where appropriate, 
domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. inland freight, and other 
U.S. transportation expenses.
    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser that took place after 
importation into the United States. We based CEP on packed CIF and CNF 
duty-paid prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We 
identified the correct starting price by adjusting the reported gross 
unit price, where applicable, for billing adjustments and early payment 
discounts. We made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses, including domestic inland freight, foreign and U.S. brokerage 
and handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs 
duties, and other transportation expenses, where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, 
including direct and indirect selling expenses, commissions and 
warranty expenses. We made an adjustment for profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    We increased EP and CEP, where appropriate, for duty drawback in 
accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. There are two systems 
in place in Korea through which Korean companies can claim duty 
drawback: the individual-rate system or the fixed-rate system (i.e., 
the simplified fixed drawback system). In prior investigations and 
administrative reviews, the Department has examined the individual-rate 
system and found that the government controls in place enable the 
Department to examine the criteria under this system for receiving a 
duty drawback adjustment (i.e., that 1) the rebates received were 
directly linked to import duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture 
of the subject merchandise, and 2) there were sufficient imports to 
account for the rebates received). See Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of 
Korea, 62 FR 55574, 55577 (October 27, 1997) and Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 59366 (October 15, 2003). Husteel, HYSCO, 
and SeAH each provided documentation demonstrating that it received 
duty drawback under the individual-rate system. We examined this 
documentation and confirmed that each of the companies met the 
Department's two-prong test for receiving a duty drawback adjustment. 
Accordingly, we are allowing the full duty drawback adjustment on all 
of Husteel's, HYSCO's, and SeAH's U.S. sales.
    Consistent with the preceding review, we have used the purchase 
order date as the date of sale for most U.S. transactions. While each 
company has a slightly different U.S. sales process, consistent 
throughout the responses is the notion that price and quantity are 
established, then the factory produces the subject merchandise, and 
finally, after a significant period of time, the product is shipped and 
an invoice

[[Page 68333]]

issued. Based on this understanding of the respondents' U.S. sales 
process, for the respondents' CEP non-consignment sales, we have used 
as date of sale the purchase order date, which reasonably approximates 
the time at which the material terms of sale are set. For CEP 
consignment sales and for EP sales, the invoice date has been used as 
the date of sale.
    We have considered the petitioners' argument that certain 
information submitted by HYSCO at the CEP sales verification 
constituted new information and should be rejected by the Department. 
We find that the revised sales data submitted by HYSCO at verification 
constitutes minor corrections to existing sales information already on 
the record in this proceeding and does not constitute new information. 
Accordingly, we have used the revised data bases in the calculation of 
our preliminary results.
    To calculate the EP and CEP, we relied upon the data submitted by 
the respondents, except where noted below:

SeAH

    We made certain minor adjustments to SeAH's submitted sales 
information based on information found at verification. See SeAH 
Verification Report and Memorandum from Team to the File, ``Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum for SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd.,'' dated 
November 26, 2003 (``SeAH Calculation Memorandum'').

Section 201 Duties

    The Department notes that merchandise subject to this review is 
subject to duties imposed under section 201 of the Act (``section 201 
duties''). Because the Department has not previously addressed the 
appropriateness of deducting section 201 duties from export price and 
constructed export price, on September 9, 2003, the Department 
published a request for public comments on this issue. See Antidumping 
Proceedings: Treatment of Section 201 Duties and Countervailing Duties, 
68 FR 53104 (September 9, 2003). The Department is currently 
considering these comments. Since the Department has not yet made a 
determination on this issue, for purposes of these preliminary results, 
no adjustment has been made.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
because each respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the 
home market was viable for all producers.
    HYSCO and SeAH reported sales in the home market of ``overrun'' 
merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater quantity of pipe than the 
customer ordered due to overproduction). HYSCO claimed that we should 
disregard ``overrun'' sales in the home market as outside the ordinary 
course of trade.
    Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be 
based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in usual 
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Ordinary 
course of trade is defined in section 771(15) of the Act. We analyzed 
the following criteria to determine whether ``overrun'' sales differ 
from other sales of commercial pipe: (1) ratio of overrun sales to 
total home market sales; (2) number of overrun customers compared to 
total number of home market customers; (3) average price of an overrun 
sale compared to average price of a commercial sale; (4) profitability 
of overrun sales compared to profitability of commercial sales; and (5) 
average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of 
a commercial sale. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 
Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 65 FR 76218, 76221 (December 6, 
2000). Based on our analysis of these criteria and on an analysis of 
the terms of sale, we found overrun sales made by SeAH and HYSCO to be 
outside the ordinary course of trade. This analysis is consistent with 
our treatment of such sales in prior reviews of this proceeding. See 
Memoranda from Team to the File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO,'' dated November 26, 2003 and SeAH 
Calculation Memorandum.

B. Arm's Length Test

    HYSCO and SeAH made sales in the home market to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers. Home market sales made to affiliated customers 
were either for consumption or further processing into non-subject 
merchandise. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's 
length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated 
party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price 
of the same or comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we 
determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's 
length. See Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the 
Comparison Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with 
the Department's practice, we only included in our margin analysis 
those sales to affiliated parties that were made at arm's length.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (``COP'') 
in the last completed review for Husteel, HYSCO, and SeAH (see Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Final Results 
of Antidumping Administrative Review, 66 FR 18747 (April 11, 2001)), we 
had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign 
product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review 
for all respondents may have been made at prices below the COP, as 
provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we requested that the respondents respond 
to section D, the cost of production/constructed value section of the 
questionnaire.
    We conducted the COP analysis described below.
1. Calculation of COP
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the 
respondents' comparison market sales were made below the COP. We 
calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses and packing, in accordance with section 
773(b)(3) of the Act.
    We allowed SeAH and Husteel to report their costs on a fiscal-year 
basis because their fiscal years were closely aligned with the POR 
(November-October POR vs. January-December fiscal year), the 
differences in costs were minimal, and there was no other indication 
that the use of fiscal-year data would be distortive. See February 12, 
2003 letter from Judith Wey Rudman to Donald Cameron regarding the cost 
reporting period.
    We relied on the respondents' information as submitted, except for 
one

[[Page 68334]]

minor adjustment to SeAH's production quantities for certain products. 
See SeAH Calculation Memorandum.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product during 
the POR, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether sales had been made at prices below the COP. The 
prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, billing 
adjustments, discounts, commissions, warranties and indirect selling 
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and (2) at 
prices which did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the 12-month period were 
at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made 
in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also 
determined that such below-cost sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We found that for each of the respondents, for certain specific 
products, more than 20 percent of the home market sales within an 
extended period of time were at prices less than the COP and, in 
addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used 
the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-factory, FOB, or delivered prices to 
affiliated or unaffiliated customers in the home market. We identified 
the starting price and made adjustments for early payment and other 
discounts, where appropriate. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for inland freight and 
warehousing. In addition, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average 
costs.
    We also made adjustments, where applicable, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on home market 
or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but 
not in the other (the commission offset). Specifically, where 
commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we make 
an allowance for the indirect selling expenses in the other market up 
to the amount of the commissions.
    For HYSCO we also adjusted the reported credit expenses for certain 
home market sales. See Memorandum from Team to the File, ``Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO'' dated November 26, 
2003 (``HYSCO Calculation Memorandum'').

E. Level of Trade (LOT)

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
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 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the 
comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than 
the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market 
(i.e., the ``chain of distribution''),\1\ including selling 
functions,\2\ class of customer (``customer category''), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The marketing process in the United States and home market 
begins with the producer and extends to the sale to the final user 
or customer. The chain of distribution between the two may have many 
or few links, and the respondents' sales occur somewhere along this 
chain. In performing this evaluation, we considered each 
respondent's narrative response to properly determine where in the 
chain of distribution the sale occurs.
    \2\ Selling functions associated with a particular chain of 
distribution help us to evaluate the level(s) of trade in a 
particular market. For purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have organized the common selling functions into four major 
categories: sales process and marketing support, freight and 
delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality assurance/warranty 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying 
levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on 
either home market or third country prices\3\,) we consider the 
starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only 
the selling expenses reflected in the price after the deduction of 
expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales to sales of the 
foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP 
or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a 
different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at 
a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it 
practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from 
the factory than the CEP LOT and we are unable to make a level of trade 
adjustment, the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We obtained information from each respondent regarding the 
marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by 
the respondents for each channel of distribution. Company-specific LOT 
findings are summarized below:
1. SeAH
    SeAH reported two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) 
sales made by SeAH (channel 1); and (2)

[[Page 68335]]

sales made by SeAH's affiliates, HSC and SSP (channel 2). Both of these 
channels serviced all customer types (i.e., affiliated and unaffiliated 
service centers and end users). We examined these channels and found 
that they were similar with respect to sales process, freight services, 
and warehouse/inventory maintenance, advertising activities, technical 
service and warranty service, and, therefore, constituted one level of 
trade.
    In the U.S. market, SeAH made CEP sales through two channels of 
distribution; (1) back-to-back transactions (channel 1); and (2) 
consignment sales (channel 2). The CEP selling activities differ from 
the home market selling activities only with respect to warranty 
services. Therefore, we find that the CEP level of trade is similar to 
the home market level of trade and a level of trade adjustment is not 
necessary. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
2. Husteel
    Husteel reported that it sells to distributors and end users in the 
home market, and to U.S. distributors and to an unaffiliated trading 
company for sale to the United States. Husteel reported a single level 
of trade in the home market and has not requested a LOT adjustment. We 
examined the information reported by Husteel and found that home market 
sales to both customer categories were identical with respect to sales 
process, freight services, warehouse/inventory maintenance, advertising 
activities, technical service, and warranty service. Accordingly, we 
preliminarily find that Husteel had only one LOT for its home market 
sales.
    Husteel states that it is not claiming a LOT adjustment because it 
has no home market sales that are at the same LOT as that of its CEP 
sales, and therefore, it cannot quantify an LOT adjustment. Husteel 
claims that a CEP offset is warranted. For its CEP sales, Husteel 
reported a single level of trade and channel of distribution. The CEP 
selling activities differ from the home market selling activities only 
with respect to freight, delivery, and warranty service. Therefore, we 
find that the CEP LOT is similar to the home market LOT and a level-of-
trade adjustment or CEP offset is not necessary. See section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
3. HYSCO
    In the home market, Hysco made sales to three customer categories: 
end-users; distributors; and government agencies. Sales to these 
customer categories were made through a single channel of distribution 
(i.e., sales from the manufacturer directly to the customer). The 
selling functions to each of the three customer categories were similar 
with respect to sales process, freight services, warehouse/inventory 
maintenance, advertising activities, technical service, and warranty 
service. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that HYSCO had one LOT for 
its home market sales.
    Hysco made both EP and CEP sales to the United States during the 
POR. Both the EP and CEP sales were made through the same channel of 
distribution (i.e., sales from the manufacturer directly to the 
customer). The EP and CEP selling activities do not differ from the 
home market selling activities. Therefore, we find that the U.S. level 
of trade is similar to the home market level of trade and a level of 
trade adjustment is not necessary. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily find that the following 
percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period November 1, 
2001, through October 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                        Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYSCO......................................................        0.94%
Husteel....................................................        1.77%
SeAH.......................................................        0.66%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise for each 
respondent. Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative 
review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the 
final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to 
assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries. To determine whether 
the duty assessment rates covering the period were de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), for 
each respondent we calculate importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem 
rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales 
to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total 
value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer 
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we 
calculate a per unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer).
    All other entries of the subject merchandise during the POR will be 
liquidated at the antidumping duty rate in place at the time of entry.
    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of 
this review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the 
reviewed companies will be the rates listed above (except no cash 
deposit will be required if a company's weighted-average margin is de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the 
previous 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 or 
any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate shall be 4.80 percent, the 
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice 
of Antidumping Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and 
Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 
(November 2, 1992).
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. A hearing, if requested, will

[[Page 68336]]

be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first 
business day thereafter. 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. The Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication 
of the preliminary results.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 1, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-30382 Filed 12-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S