Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-549-502]

Certain Circular 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.

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

SUMMARY: On January 19, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the final results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Thailand (61 FR 1328). On February 2, 1996, Saha

Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Saha Thai), the sole respondent covered by

this review, filed a timely allegation of clerical error regarding

calculation of the cash deposit rate. Petitioners filed a timely reply

to respondent's clerical error allegation on February 9, 1996. Upon

review of these submissions, we have determined that the Department

made a clerical error when it stated in the final results that ``the

countervailing duty review for the period January 1, 1993, through

December 31, 1993, has not yet been completed.'' Id. at 1338. It is

because of

[[Page 18376]]

this clerical error that the Department did not adjust United States

price (USP) pursuant to section 772 (d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act) for countervailing duties attributable to

export subsidies imposed on the subject merchandise. We are publishing

this amendment to the final results of review in accordance with 19 CFR

353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hanley or Zev Primor, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

3058/4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published the order on certain circular welded

carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand on March 11, 1986 (51 FR

8341). The Department published the preliminary results of this review

on November 22, 1994 (59 FR 60128), and the final results of review on

January 19, 1996 (61 FR 1328).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and the

Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this administrative review are shipments of

certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The

subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more,

but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly

referred to in the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural

tubing,'' are hereinafter designated as ``pipe and tube.'' The

merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040,

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. The item numbers are

provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes. The written

description remains dispositive as to the scope of the order.

The review period is March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. This

review involves one company, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. (Saha

Thai).

Ministerial Error in Final Results of Review

Saha Thai alleges that the Department committed a clerical error by

failing to recognize that both countervailing duty reviews (1992 and

1993) that cover the antidumping period of review (March 1, 1992

through February 28, 1993) were completed prior to the completion of

this review. As a result, Saha Thai alleges, the Department had the

information to adjust USP (pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act)

to account for countervailing duties in its margin calculations prior

to issuing the antidumping final results, but failed to do so.

Petitioners agree that the Department committed an error by stating

that the 1993 countervailing duty review had yet to be completed.

However, petitioners claim that the Department clearly stated in its

final results that the U.S. Customs Service would adjust the

antidumping duty cash deposit rate established in this review by the

current countervailing duty cash deposit rate in effect at the time

entries are made. Therefore, petitioners claim that this is a

methodological rather than clerical issue, and oppose any adjustment to

USP for countervailing duties imposed.

We agree with Saha Thai that the Department made a clerical error

in its final results by stating that ``the countervailing duty review

for the period January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993 has not yet

been completed'' (61 FR 1338). In fact the final results of the 1993

countervailing duty review were published in the Federal Register on

August 23, 1995 (60 FR 43773). Therefore, at the time it issued the

final results of this review on January 19, 1996, the Department had

the information necessary to adjust USP upward for countervailing

duties attributable to export subsidies imposed on the merchandise as

required by section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.

Further, we disagree with petitioners that this is a methodological

issue. The Department's unintentional error was clearly a ministerial

one within the meaning of section 353.28(d) of the Department's

regulations. 19 CFR 353.28(d). The statute clearly instructs the

Department to adjust USP for countervailing duties imposed on

merchandise subject to an antidumping duty review that are attributable

to export subsidies. In this review the Department mistakenly concluded

that it did not have the complete information to make such an

adjustment, and therefore stated that it would instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to adjust the antidumping duty cash deposit rate by the

countervailing duty rate currently in effect. Because it is now clear

that the information necessary to make the adjustment was available

before completion of the final results, failure to make the adjustment

is a clerical error.

Final Results of Review

Based upon correction of the ministerial error described above, we

determine that a margin of 17.28 percent exists for Saha Thai for the

period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated

above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of these final results of administrative review for

all shipments of pipe and tube from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and will remain in effect

until the final results of the next administrative review: (1) the cash

deposit rate for Saha Thai will be 17.28 percent; (2) for previously

investigated companies not named above, the cash deposit 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, 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) the cash deposit rate for all

other manufacturers or exporters will be the ``all others'' rate

established in the final notice of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation of this case, in accordance with the U.S. Court of

International Trade's decisions in Floral Trade Council v. United

States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) and Federal Mogul Corporation and

Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993). The

all others rate is 15.67 percent. These deposit requirements when

imposed, 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.

[[Page 18377]]

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 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written 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 amendment of final results of review and notice are in

accordance with section 751(e) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(e))

and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: April 11, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-10113 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P