Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-489-501]

Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded

carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey in response to a request by the

petitioners.\1\ This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the

United States during the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995.

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

\1\ Allied Tube & Conduit and Wheatland Tube Company.

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

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our

final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping

duties equal to the differences between the United States price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary

results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Stagner or Magd Zalok, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)

482-1673 or (202) 482-4162, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

On May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24831), the Department published in the

Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative

Review'' of the antidumping duty order on Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube from Turkey covering the period May 1, 1994, through

April 30, 1995 (58 FR 53709). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1),

in May 1995, the petitioners requested a review of the following

producers and exporters of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube:

(1) The Borusan Group \2\ (Borusan); (2) Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru

Industrisi T.A.S. (Mannesmann); (3) Yucelboru Ihracat, Ithalat ve

Pazarlama A.S./Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yucelboru); and

(4) Erbosan

[[Page 35189]]

Erviyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan). On June 15, 1995, the

Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty

administrative review (60 FR 31447). The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

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

\2\ Including Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalar A.S., Kartal Boru

Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S.

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

On June 30 and November 13, 1995, respectively, Yucelboru and

Mannesmann stated that they did not have any shipments during the

period of review (POR). In November 1995, Borusan and Erbosan submitted

responses to the Department's September 12, 1995, questionnaire. We

issued supplemental questionnaires to Borusan and Erbosan in May 1996.

Responses to these questionnaires were received in June 1996.

On January 16, 1996, the petitioners alleged that Borusan made

sales at below its cost of production (COP). On May 3, 1996, we

initiated an investigation of sales below cost. In June 1996, Borusan

submitted a response to the Department's May 23, 1996, cost

questionnaire.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review include circular welded non-

alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than

406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall

thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end

finish (plain end, bevelled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be

called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications.

Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance

of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in

plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic

sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be

used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for

fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit

shells.

The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or

those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard

pipe application. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical

description outlined above are included in the scope of this review,

except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-

drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.

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

customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Facts Available

In November 1995, we received a questionnaire response from

Erbosan. In addition, Erbosan responded to a supplemental questionnaire

in June 1996. In its responses, Erbosan did not provide: (1) The data

necessary for the Department to quantify the cost attributable to

physical differences in its U.S. and home market merchandise; (2) U.S.

and home market packing expenses; and (3) duty drawback amounts.

Section 776(a)(1) states that if necessary information is not

available on the record, the Department ``shall, subject to section

782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.'' Section 782(e) provides that the

Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted

by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does

not meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department

if: (1) The information is submitted by the deadline established for

its submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the

information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable

basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested

party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in

providing the information and meeting the requirements established by

the Department with respect to the information; and (5) the information

can be used without undue difficulties. Accordingly, in using the facts

available, the Department may disregard information submitted by a

respondent if any of the five criteria has not been met.

Due to the above-referenced omissions, we have determined that

Erbosan's response is so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable

basis for calculating dumping margins for these preliminary results

(section 782(e)(3) of the Act). Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)

of the Act, we are using facts available to calculate a margin for

Erbosan.

The Department must then determine whether an adverse inference is

warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, where the

Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by

not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for

information from (the Department) * * * (the Department) may use an

inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting

from among the facts otherwise available.''

Despite there being insufficient information to calculate a

preliminary margin, we believe that Erbosan has cooperated to the best

of its ability in supplying the requested information in this review.

Therefore, we are not using an adverse inference in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available (see section 776(b) of the Act).

Erbosan is a new respondent that has not been investigated before.

Therefore, its past entries have been subject to the ``All Others''

rate from the original investigation. We have determined that continued

use of the rate is warranted as a cooperative facts available rate for

purposes of these preliminary results. Accordingly, we have assigned to

Erbosan a margin of 14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate from the

original investigation.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), provides that ``corroborate'' means simply

that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information

to be used has probative value (see H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d

Sess. 870 (1996).

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the

extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the

information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information,

such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent

sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative

review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated

dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time

period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,

the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as

to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not

relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as facts available, the Department will disregard the

margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review (61 FR 6812, 6814, February 22, 1996)) (where the Department

[[Page 35190]]

disregarded the highest margin as adverse best information available

because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case

there are no circumstances present to indicate that the selected margin

is not appropriate to use as facts available.

Although we are using facts available for the preliminary results,

we intend to provide Erbosan an opportunity to submit the missing

information referenced above as part of a response to another

supplemental questionnaire. If Erbosan's reported information is

accurate, complete and verified, we will use such information in the

final results.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated for

Borusan transaction-specific Export Prices (EPs) for comparison to

either weighted-average NVs or constructed values. The EPs and NVs were

calculated and compared by product characteristics and levels of trade.

For price to price comparisons, we compared identical merchandise,

where possible. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in

the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar comparisons

based on the characteristics listed in the Department's antidumping

questionnaire. We excluded certain products in the home market from our

analysis because there were either missing values or because the

merchandise was not part of the foreign like product.

Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA

accompanying the URAA, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the

Department will calculate normal value based on sales at the same level

of trade as the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales

in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S.

sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign

markets at different levels of trade (see also, Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy (61 FR 30326,

June 14, 1996) (Pasta from Italy)).

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at

different levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the

normal value to account for the difference in level of trade if two

conditions are met. First, there must be differences between the actual

selling functions performed by the seller at the level of trade of the

U.S. sale and the level of trade of the normal value sale. Second, the

differences must affect price comparability as evidenced by a pattern

of consistent price differences between sales at the different levels

of trade in the market in which normal value is determined.

In implementing these principles in this case, the Department's

first task was to obtain information about the selling activities of

the producers/exporters. Information relevant to level of trade

comparisons and adjustments was requested of Borusan in our May 1996

supplemental questionnaire. We asked Borusan to establish any claimed

levels of trade based on the selling functions provided to each

proposed customer group, and to document and explain any claims for a

level of trade adjustment.

Our review of Borusan's submission shows that it has identified

levels of trade based on its selling activities by customer categories

and channels of distribution. In order to confirm whether separate

levels of trade actually existed within or between the U.S. and home

markets, we reviewed the selling functions attributable to the levels

of trade claimed by Borusan. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act, and the SAA at 827, in identifying levels of trade for directly

observed export price and normal value sales, we considered the selling

functions reflected in the starting price, before any adjustments. In

reporting selling functions, whenever sales within a level of trade

were made by or through an affiliated company or agent, Borusan

``collapsed'' the affiliated parties before considering the functions

performed.

The selling functions and activities examined for each reported

level of trade were: (1) Inventory maintenance; (2) technical services;

(3) warranty services; (4) customer advice and product information; (5)

agent coordination of production and delivery; (6) general vs.

speciality sales staff; (7) delivery arrangements; (8) sales from

warehouse vs. direct sales; and (9) direct advertising. We did not

consider trade discounts as a selling function (see Pasta from Italy).

In reviewing the selling functions reported by Borusan for each

claimed level of trade, we considered all types of selling functions,

both claimed and unclaimed, that had been performed. Where possible, we

further examined whether the selling function was performed on a

substantial portion of sales within the relevant level of trade. In

analyzing whether separate levels of trade exist in this review, we

found that no single selling function in the pipe and tube industry was

sufficient to warrant a separate level of trade (see, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments (61 FR 7307, 7348,

February 27, 1996)).

In determining whether separate levels of trade existed in or

between the U.S. and home markets, the Department considered the level

of trade claims of Borusan, but the ultimate decision was based on the

Department's analysis of the selling functions associated with the

levels of trade reported by Borusan.

For Borusan, we determined that there is one U.S. level of trade

and three home market levels of trade, one of which we determined to be

identical in aggregate selling functions to that found in the United

States. We compared sales at the sole level of trade in the U.S. market

to sales at the identical home market level of trade. If no match was

available at the same level of trade, we compared sales at the sole

level of trade in the U.S. market to sales at the next most similar

home market level of trade. We then examined whether a level of trade

adjustment was appropriate for Borusan when comparing sales at its U.S.

level of trade to sales at the two non-identical home market levels of

trade.

To determine whether a level of trade adjustment was necessary, we

examined, on a monthly basis, the prices of comparable product

categories, net of all adjustments, between sales at the one identical

home market level of trade and sales at each of the two non-identical

home market levels of trade. We found a consistent pattern of price

differences between sales at these levels of trade. Therefore, for non-

identical level of trade matches, we made a level of trade adjustment

based on the weighted-average difference between the prices of the

product at the identical home market level of trade and each of the

products at the two non-identical home market levels of trade in the

given month. If no match was found, we compared EP to constructed

value.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of pipe and tube to the United States

were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as

described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this

notice.

Turkey experienced an inflation rate of over 75 percent during the

POR, as measured by the wholesale price index published in

International Financial Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid the

distortions caused by the effects of this level of inflation on prices,

we limited our comparisons to sales in the same month and did not apply

the Department's 90/60 day rule.

[[Page 35191]]

Export Price

For Borusan, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of

the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and

Constructed Export Price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted

based on the facts of this investigation.

We based EP on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price),

where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign inland

insurance, international freight and charges. We recalculated credit

expenses due to errors in Borusan's credit methodology. Additionally,

we added countervailing duties and duty drawback. We disallowed

Borusan's claimed value-added tax drawback because no statutory

authority exists for such an adjustment.

Normal Value

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 Borusan's volume of home market sales of the foreign like

product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since Borusan'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 for the

subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. We

calculated NV as noted in the ``Price to Price Comparisons'' and

``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on the petitioner's allegation, the Department found

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Borusan's sales in the

home market were made at prices below the cost of producing the

merchandise. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to

determine whether Borusan made home market sales during the POR at

prices below its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the sum of Borusan's cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts

for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A)

and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. As

noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced

significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the

distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices,

we requested that Borusan submit monthly production costs incurred

during each month of the POR. For a small number of sales, Borusan did

not report production costs. These sales were not matched to any U.S.

sales. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis. We

calculated a simple-average cost for each product after indexing the

reported monthly costs of manufacturing during the POR to an equivalent

currency level using the wholesale price index for Turkey. The simple-

average cost of manufacturing was then restated in the currency value

of each respective month and used to calculate monthly COP and CV for

each product. We relied on Borusan's submitted costs except in the

following specific instances where the reported costs were improperly

valued:

(1) Borusan reduced its reported coil costs by inventory holding

gains. Our current cost methodology for economies with significant

inflation requires valuing any materials used to produce the subject

merchandise at the average purchase price of those materials during the

month of shipment. We therefore adjusted coil costs by removing these

holding gains.

(2) Borusan reported interest expenses which reflect a deduction

for foreign exchange gains. We adjusted these interest expenses by

excluding the foreign exchange gains since Borusan did not describe the

nature of the transactions giving rise to the gains.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We used Borusan's adjusted monthly COP amounts and the wholesale

price index from the government of Turkey's State Institute of

Statistics to compute an annual weighted average COP for the POR. We

compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the

foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in

order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below

the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home

market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and

direct selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20

percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were 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 were at prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made

at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of

the Act). Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below

the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and calculated NV

based on CV, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act.

We found that, for certain pipe and tube products, more than 20

percent of Borusan's home market sales were sold at below the COP.

Further, we did not find that the prices for these sales provided for

the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore

excluded these sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-

cost sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section

773(b)(1). For those pipe and tube products for which there were no

above-cost sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared export

prices to CV.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of Borusan's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A and

U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales databases. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the

actual amounts incurred and realized by Borusan in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course

of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. We calculated CV

based on the methodology described in the calculation of COP above. For

selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling

expenses.

Price to Price Comparisons

For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices

above the COP, we based NV on home market prices. For Borusan, we

calculated NV based on FOB mill/warehouse or delivered prices to

unaffiliated customers, or prices to affiliated customers which were

determined to be at arm's length (see discussion below regarding these

sales). We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price

for inland freight, pre-sale warehouse expense, discounts, and rebates.

We recalculated credit expenses to correct for missing payment dates.

Additionally, we added late payment charges. In accordance with

section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and

added U.S. packing costs.

[[Page 35192]]

In addition, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances of

sale, in accordance with section 773 (a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These

circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses. We also

made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the

merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We

calculated simple average variable and total costs of manufacturing by

product after indexing the reported monthly costs using the wholesale

price index for Turkey. We then indexed the average variable and total

costs of manufacturing to restate them in the currency value of each

respective month. The adjusted monthly variable costs of manufacturing

for U.S. and home market products were then compared to arrive at the

difference in merchandise adjustment. For a single U.S. product, where

no costs were reported, we assigned the highest reported U.S. variable

cost of manufacture as facts available. Where the difference in

merchandise adjustment for any product comparison exceeded 20 percent,

we based normal value on CV.

To determine whether Borusan's affiliated sales were made at arm's

length, we compared the gross unit prices of sales to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct and indirect

selling expenses, and packing (see the Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products

from Argentina (58 FR 37062, 37077, July 9, 1993)). We included those

sales that passed the arm's length test in our analysis (see 19 CFR

353.45(a)).

Price to CV Comparisons

Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the

weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the

weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the

Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track

or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made

currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow

Jones Service, as published in the Wall Street Journal.

Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is the Department's practice

to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as

the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days.

However, we believe that it is appropriate in this case to use

actual daily exchange rates for currency conversion purposes, rather

than the benchmark rate. As noted in Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency

Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996), the Department is continuing

to examine the appropriateness of the currency conversion policy in

situations where the foreign currency depreciates substantially against

the dollar over the POI. In those situations, it may be appropriate to

rely on daily exchange rates. When the rate of domestic price inflation

is significant, as it is in this case, it is important that we use as a

basis for NV home market prices that are as contemporaneous as possible

with the date of the U.S. sale. This is to minimize the extent to which

calculated dumping margins are overstated or understated due solely to

price inflation that occurred in the intervening time period between

the U.S. and home market sales. For this reason, we have used the daily

exchange rates for currency conversion purposes.

Further, section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60 day

adjustment period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement.

Such an adjustment period is required only when the foreign currency is

appreciating against the U.S. dollar. No adjustment period is warranted

in this review, because the Turkish Lira generally remained constant or

depreciated against the dollar during the POR.

Verification

On June 7, 1996, the petitioners requested that the Department

conduct verification of all factual information submitted by the

respondents upon which the Department relies in its final results.

Although this request was untimely and therefore not in accordance with

19 CFR 351.307(v)(A), the petitioners stated that this request should

not be rejected due to the fact that: (1) No verification has been

conducted in a review of the order since the 1986-87 administrative

review; (2) a sales below cost of production investigation had only

recently been initiated; and (3) no response had been received on

petitioners' request for a verification of the 1993-94 administrative

review. The petitioners stated that the delay in the completion of the

1993-94 review had impeded their ability to timely assess the need for

verification in this review.

Although the petitioners' request was untimely, we believe that in

this case, good cause for verification exists pursuant to 19 CFR

353.36(a)(iii) since: (1) No verification has been conducted since the

1986-87 administrative review; (2) we expect that there will be

significant post-preliminary results submissions of information; and

(3) this review includes a company (Erbosan) that has never been

subject to a verification. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.36, we plan to verify the sales and cost response of

Borusan and the sales response of Erbosan (provided that Erbosan

responds in full to the next supplemental questionnaire) in this

administrative review.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period May 1, 1994, through April 30,

1995:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Review period (percent)

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

Borusan................................... 5/1/94-4/30/95 2.97

Erbosan................................... 5/1/94-4/30/95 14.74

Mannesmann................................ 5/1/94-4/30/95 3 23.12

Yucelboru................................. 5/1/94-4/30/95 4 28.28

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

\3\ No shipments subject to the review. Rate is from the last relevant

segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.

\4\ Ibid.

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of

publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30

days of the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues

raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after

the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the

final results of this administrative review, which will include the

results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.

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

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between EP and NV may vary from the percentages stated

above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

[[Page 35193]]

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this administrative review for all

shipments of pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from

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

provided by section 752(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates

for Borusan and Erbosan will be the rates established in the final

results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent

and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of section 733(b)(3) of

the Act, the cash deposit will be zero; (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, a

prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

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 review conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will be the ``All Others'' rate, as

set forth below.

On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), in

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and

Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993),

decided that once an ``All Others'' rate is established for a company,

it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department

has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is

appropriate to reinstate the original ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV

investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical

errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping

findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``All Others'' rate from

the original investigation, the Department has determined that it is

appropriate to adopt the ``New Shipper'' rate established in the first

final results of administrative review published by the Department (or

that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result

of litigation) as the ``All Others'' rate for the purposes of

establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative

reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty

order, the ``All Others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be

14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in

effect until publication of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Date: June 27, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-17160 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P