[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 54 (Monday, March 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12112-12113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6326]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-580-825)


Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: 
Amended Final Results of the Administrative Review Pursuant to Final 
Court Decision

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 2009.
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2008, the United States Court of International 
Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT remand and entered final 
judgment in Husteel Company, Ltd. and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v. United 
States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-00075, Slip Op. 08-139 (CIT December 22, 
2008) (Husteel v. United States III). See Results of Redetermination on 
Remand Pursuant to Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v. 
United States, dated December 5, 2008 (Final Remand Results) (available 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands).
    As there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, 
the Department is amending its final results to the administrative 
review covering oil country tubular goods, other than drill

[[Page 12113]]

pipe, from Korea covering the period of review (POR) of August 1, 2003 
through July 31, 2004 to reflect the Final Remand Results.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This matter arose from a challenge to Oil Country Tubular Goods, 
Other Than Drill Pipe, from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 13091 (March 14, 2006) (Final Results), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum covering the POR of 
August 1, 2003 through July 31, 2004. In the Final Results, the 
Department found that the use of third country sales to a non-market 
economy, the People's Republic of China (PRC) in this case, were 
inappropriate for determining normal value, because these sales were 
not representative. Id. As such, in calculating normal value for SeAH 
Steel Corp. Ltd. (SeAH), the Department used SeAH's third country sales 
to Canada, and in calculating normal value for Husteel Co. Ltd. 
(Husteel), the Department used constructed value. Therefore, SeAH was 
assigned a rate of 6.84 percent, and Husteel was assigned a rate of 
12.30 percent. Id.
    In Husteel Co., Ltd. and SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd. v. United 
States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-00075, Slip Op. 06-2 (May 15, 2007 CIT), the 
CIT remanded the Department's Final Results holding that Department did 
not adequately explain its basis for finding that the prices of 
HuSteel's and SeAH's (collectively plaintiffs) sales to the PRC were 
not representative pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Specifically, the CIT found 
that the Department failed to explain: (1) why plaintiffs' sales should 
be treated as sales into a non-market economy (NME); and (2) why the 
Department treated plaintiffs' price data differently than it treats 
price data for sales from market economy suppliers to NME respondents 
in its NME dumping cases. On October 30, 2007, the Department issued 
its Results of Redetermination on Remand Pursuant to Husteel Co., Ltd. 
and SeAH Steel Corporation Ltd. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-
00075, Slip Op. 06-2 (May 15, 2007 CIT), (Remand Results I). In Remand 
Results I, the Department continued to find Plaintiffs' sales into the 
PRC were not representative of section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) of the Act 
and provided additional support for this determination.
    In Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v. United States, 
Consol. Ct. No. 06-00075, Slip Op. 08-62 (CIT June 2, 2008) (HuSteel vs 
United States II), the CIT remanded the Department's Remand Results I, 
holding that the Department's finding, that sales into an NME are not 
representative, was not supported by substantial record evidence. The 
CIT directed the Department to either present persuasive record 
evidence that plaintiffs' sales into the PRC were not representative 
within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. Sec.  1677b(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I), or find 
the sales into the PRC to be representative, and then recalculate and 
assign the plaintiffs new antidumping duty assessment rates. On August 
29, 2008, the Department issued its final results of redetermination 
pursuant to Husteel vs United States II. See Results of Redetermination 
on Remand Pursuant to Husteel Company, Ltd., and SeAH Corp., Ltd., v. 
United States (August 29, 2008) (Remand Results II). The remand 
redetermination explained that, in accordance with the CIT's 
instructions, after finding sales to the PRC to be representative, the 
Department recalculated the assessment rate for SeAH and Husteel. 
Specifically, the Department determined SeAH's new weighted-average 
margin to be 0.59 percent, and Husteel's new weighted-average margin to 
be 0.62 percent.
    However, in the Remand Results II for Husteel, the Department 
inadvertently treated certain Korean inventory carrying costs as if 
they were denominated in U.S. dollars when they, in fact, had been 
denominated in Korean won. Therefore, in Husteel Company Ltd. and SeAH 
Corp. Ltd., v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 06-000075, Slip Op. 08-
127 (CIT November 21, 2008), the CIT upheld the Department's Remand 
Results II, with the exception of the calculation of certain inventory 
carrying costs. The CIT ordered the Department to correct its 
calculation of Husteel's Korean inventory carrying costs. In accordance 
with the CIT's order, the Department corrected its calculation with 
regard to Husteel's Korean inventory carrying costs. See Final Remand 
Results. As a result, Husteel's new dumping margin is now de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent) and SeAH's margin remains 0.59 percent.
    On January 29, 2009, consistent with the decision in Timken Co. v. 
United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Department notified 
the public that the CIT's decision was not in harmony with Department's 
final results. See Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, 
From Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony with Final Results 
of Administrative Review, 74 FR 5147 (January 29, 2009). There was no 
appeal of the CIT's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit filed within the appeal period. Therefore, the CIT's 
decision is now final and conclusive.

Amended Final Results of the Review

    As the litigation in this case has concluded, the Department is 
amending the Final Results to reflect the results of our remand 
redetermination. The revised dumping margin in the amended final 
results is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Exporter/Manufacturer                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Husteel Company, Ltd................................          de minimis
SeAH Corp., Ltd.....................................                0.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to liquidate entries of OCTG from Korea during the review period 
at the assessment rate the Department calculated for the final results 
of review, as amended. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any 
entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis. We intend to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
these amended final results of review.
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March March 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-6326 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S