Antidumping: Welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from— Thailand,

[Federal Register: November 25, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 227)]

[Notices]

[Page 65172-65173]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr25no98-47]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand.

SUMMARY: On October 16, 1998 the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (63 FR 55578). This review covers the following manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States: Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. (``Saha Thai''), and its affiliated exporter S.A.F. Pipe Export Co., Ltd. (``SAF''). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.

On October 16, 1998, pursuant to section 353.28(a) of the Department's regulations, Saha Thai, SAF, and two U.S. importers, Ferro Union, Inc., and Asoma Corporation (collectively, ``Saha Thai'') filed a ministerial error allegation regarding the Department's calculation of importer-specific assessment rates in the final results of the review. In addition, when reviewing Saha Thai's allegation, the Department identified a misstatement in the Federal Register notice of the final results. The Department is publishing these amended final results to correct these ministerial errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Totaro, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482- 1374.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (hereinafter, ``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (1997). Although the Department's new regulations, codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1998) (``Final Regulations''), do not govern this administrative review, citations to those regulations are provided, where appropriate, as a statement of current Departmental practice.

Ministerial Errors in the Final Results of Review

Where U.S. sales are on an export price (EP) basis and the record does not contain entered value data, the Department's margin calculation program calculates the duty amount to be collected from each importer on a dollars-per-metric ton basis. Because Saha Thai's sales during the POR were all EP sales, the Department's margin calculation program intended to calculate the duty owed for assessment purposes using the methodology described above. Saha Thai alleged that the Department's margin calculation program contained a ministerial error because in calculating the unit duty for each importer, the Department inadvertently increased the quotient of its unit duty calculation by a factor of 100. We examined the margin calculation program, and we agree with Saha Thai that this is a clerical error

[[Page 65173]]

within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.28 (d), i.e., an error in arithmetic functions of the calculation program. We have corrected the program so that the result of the unit duty calculation program is no longer multiplied by a factor of 100. This correction affects only the importer-specific assessment rates, not the margin calculated in the final results.

We also note one additional ministerial error not raised by the parties in this review. In the final results Federal Register notice, the Department stated that ``[f]or assessment purposes, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales during the POR to the total entered value of sales examined during the POR.'' 63 FR at 55590. This statement is incorrect, and does not reflect the margin calculation program disclosed to the parties with the final results of this review. As stated above, the record of this review does not contain data on the entered value of the sales examined during the POR. Therefore, for the final results of this review we calculated the duty amount to be collected from each importer on a unit basis, i.e., a ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales during the POR to the total quantity of sales examined during the POR, not a ratio of antidumping duties to the entered value of these sales.

Amended Final Results of Review

Upon correction of the ministerial errors described above, the margin remains unchanged from the final results published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1998. However, as discussed above, the importer-specific assessment rates will change from those disclosed to the parties with the final results. We will instruct the Customs Service accordingly.

Manufacturer/Exporter

Period

Margin

Saha Thai......................... 3/1/96-2/28/97

1.92%

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. As a result of this review, we have determined that the importer- specific duty assessments rates are necessary. For assessment purposes, therefore, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales during the POR to the total quantity of sales examined during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all shipments of certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate stated above; (2) for previously 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 these reviews, or the original LTFV investigations, 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 these reviews, the cash deposit rate for this case will continue to be 15.67 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This amended administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and sections 353.22 and 353.28(c) of the Department's regulations.

Dated: November 18, 1998. Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-31555Filed11-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P