Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-835]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final results of antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods

(``OCTG'') from Japan. This review covers one producer/exporter, NKK

Corporation of Japan (``NKK''), entries of drill pipe during the period

August 11, 1995 through July 31, 1996, and entries of OCTG other than

drill pipe during the period February 2, 1995 through July 31, 1996. We

gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary

results. After reviewing the comments received, we have determined not

to change the results from those presented in the preliminary results

of review.

This review was initiated in response to requests by importers,

Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (``H&P'') and Caprock Pipe and Supply

(``Caprock''), for a review of

[[Page 48595]]

NKK and HEBRA AS (``HEBRA''), respectively. Although we initiated a

review of both NKK and HEBRA, we rescinded the review with respect to

HEBRA because Caprock timely withdrew its request for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian, Alain Letort, or

John Kugelman, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20230, telephone 202/482-1395 (Bezirganian), 202/482-4243 (Letort), or

202/482-0649 (Kugelman), fax 202/482-1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (``the Act'') by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless

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

to 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1997).

Background

The Department published an antidumping duty order on OCTG from

Japan on August 11, 1995 (60 FR 41058). The Department published a

notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the

antidumping duty order for the 1995/96 review period on August 12, 1996

(61 FR 41768). On August 28, 1996, H&P, an importer of drill pipe,

requested an administrative review of sales of subject merchandise

produced by NKK and imported, or withdrawn from a foreign trade zone,

during the review period (August 11, 1995, through July 31, 1996) for

drill pipe. We initiated a review of NKK on September 17, 1996 (61 FR

48882). Caprock, an importer of used OCTG, requested a review of HEBRA

(which Caprock identified as a Norwegian-based export company), but

later timely withdrew that request.

On May 12, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register

the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on OCTG from Japan (62 FR 25889). The Department

has now completed this administrative review in accordance with section

751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this order is OCTG, hollow steel

products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing,

tubing and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both

carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not

conforming to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API

specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes

and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing,

tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The

OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item numbers:

7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40,

7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10,

7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50,

7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20,

7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60,

7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30,

7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80,

7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60,

7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45,

7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7304.21.30.00, 7304.21.60.30,

7304.21.60.45, 7304.21.60.60, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,

7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90,

7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10,

7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.

Many of these HTSUS numbers reflect changes made to the HTSUS since

the less-than-fair value (``LTFV'') investigation. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The period of review (``POR'') is August 11, 1995 through July 31,

1996, for drill pipe, and February 2, 1995 through July 31, 1996, for

OCTG other than drill pipe. This review covers entries of OCTG produced

by NKK.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received comments from H&P on June 10, 1997.

H&P requested a public hearing, which was held on July 2, 1997.

H&P's Comments

H&P argues that sales of merchandise entered by H&P during the POR

are not subject to this administrative review because the dates of sale

associated with these entries are prior to the POR, and, in fact, prior

to the imposition of the antidumping order.

H&P states that it purchased the merchandise from MC Tubular

Products, Inc. (``MCTP''), a Japanese corporation, and imported it into

a foreign trade zone. H&P indicates it believes MCTP had purchased this

merchandise from Mitsubishi Corporation, a Japanese trading company,

and that Mitsubishi Corporation (``MC'') had purchased the merchandise

from NKK, an unaffiliated Japanese manufacturer. Furthermore, H&P

indicates that it was its understanding that NKK had known that the

ultimate destination of the merchandise was the United States.

H&P concludes that ``[g]iven the structure of these transactions,

the sale from NKK to Mitsubishi Corporation constituted an exporter's

price sale (see e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 31747 (July

11, 1991); Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof From France et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28428 (June 24, 1992),'' and, ``[a]s

such, the date of sale should be considered to be the date of NKK's

invoice to MC.'' Case Brief of H&P (June 10, 1997) at 3. Alternatively,

H&P submits that the date of the purchase agreement between H&P and

MCTP could be the date of sale. H&P notes that regardless of which date

is considered the date of sale, the sale dates for the merchandise in

question were prior to the effective date of the order in this case,

and thus should not be subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

H&P's submission dated November 4, 1996, at 3.

H&P relies upon General Electric v. United States, 17 CIT 268

(1993) (``General Electric'') in support of its argument that sales

prior to the period of review are not subject to review (see page 3 of

H&P's case brief) and ``should not be subject to the assessment of

antidumping duties'' (see H&P submission, November 4, 1996, at 3). H&P

states that the plaintiff in the General Electric case argued that

since entries occurred during the POR, the Department was required to

calculate a margin for the sales even if the sales

[[Page 48596]]

were outside the POR. H&P notes that in General Electric, the

Department requested a remand since those sales identified by the

plaintiff which occurred before the POR should have been excluded from

the antidumping duty calculations. H&P further notes that the Court of

International Trade (``CIT'') agreed with this Department position and

ordered a remand to exclude those sales made prior to the POR from the

calculation of the assessment rate. Thus, H&P concludes that the

Department must exclude the subject sales from administrative review,

and requests the Department to instruct U.S. Customs to liquidate the

entries of this merchandise without the assessment of antidumping

duties.

Department's Position

Section 751(a)(2) of the Act specifies that, for the purposes of a

review under section 751(a)(1)(B), the Department is to determine ``the

normal value and export price (or constructed export price) of each

entry of the subject merchandise, and * * * the dumping margin for each

such entry.'' 19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Because H&P

requested a review of NKK merchandise, and because there were entries

of NKK merchandise during the POR, we requested that NKK submit a

complete response to our antidumping questionnaire. NKK's failure to

provide such a response to the questionnaire warrants the application

of facts available in determining the appropriate margin. Pursuant to

section 1675(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the margin determination shall be the

basis for both the assessment of antidumping duties and the deposit of

estimated antidumping duties. Thus, as discussed below, the assessment

and cash deposit rates for NKK will be 44.20 percent, the highest rate

from the petition.

The circumstances in General Electric differed from those in this

review. The issue before the CIT in General Electric was whether the

Department properly calculated the amount of antidumping duties to be

assessed on all entries during the POR. In General Electric, the

Department reviewed sales rather than entries during the POR, and

therefore could not derive duties on an entry by entry basis. As the

Department stated in the final results of the administrative review

being reviewed by the CIT, ``[s]ince units entered and units sold are

almost identical in purchase price situations, we can collect a close

approximation of the total dumping duty liability by calculating

importer-specific per-unit amounts for sales during the period of

review and applying those per-unit amounts to entries during the

period.'' The CIT ruled that by examining the amount of dumping on

sales during the POR, the Department would assess the correct amount of

antidumping duties on all of General Electric's entries during the POR.

While the parties in General Electric focused on the proper way to

assess entries during the POR, there was no dispute over whether

entries should have been assessed antidumping duties. As a result,

General Electric does not support H&P's argument that entries that

occurred during the POR should be excluded from administrative review

if sales occurred outside the POR.

In this review, H&P has not argued that the POR entries could not

be linked to the sales, or that the Department intended to base its

calculations only upon U.S. sales during the POR. Unlike General

Electric, in this administrative review the Department never suggested

that it would diverge from its preferred practice for reviewing EP

(formerly purchase price) transactions. Thus, the Department requested

that respondents respond fully to the Department's questionnaire,

including reporting all entries of subject merchandise during the POR

that were associated with U.S. sales. The September 19, 1996,

questionnaire sent to NKK indicated, at page C-1, that the respondent

should ``[r]eport each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption

during the POR, except: (1) for EP sales, if you do not know the entry

dates, report each transaction involving merchandise shipped during the

POR * * *'' (emphasis added).

Furthermore, the Department's notice of opportunity to request a

review of the antidumping order on OCTG stated that ``[i]f the

Department does not receive, by August 31, 1996, a request for review

of entries covered by an order or finding listed in this notice and for

the period identified above, the Department will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries

at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated

antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the

time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to

continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered'' (emphasis

added). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,

61 FR 41768, 41771. Therefore, it was clear that all POR entries would

be subject to the review process, regardless of whether the date of

sale was within the POR. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 62 FR 43504,

43510 (August 14, 1997).

H&P indicated that a Department official had confirmed ``that a

full review of sales made during the relevant period by NKK will result

from the filing of [its] administrative review request dated August 28,

1996.'' Page 1 of H&P's September 4, 1996, submission, at 1 (emphasis

added). However, such a full review would have been consistent with

normal practice, since typically EP sales made during the POR are

associated with entries during the POR. In fact, in part because of

NKK's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire, it is not

clear from the record of this review that NKK did not make U.S. sales

during the POR, or that there were no additional POR entries into the

United States of subject merchandise produced by NKK. Furthermore,

H&P's admission that various dates may be considered the date of sale,

the speculative nature of its description of stages of the sales

process, and NKK's failure to provide a complete response to the

Department's questionnaire casts further doubt upon any assertions

regarding POR entries of subject merchandise produced by NKK.

As indicated in our preliminary results, NKK's failure to respond

to our questionnaire requires the Department to resort to the use of

facts available. For these final results we have continued to assign to

NKK the corroborated petition rate of 44.20 percent, which constitutes

the highest rate for any company for the same class or kind of

merchandise from the same country from this or any prior segment of the

proceeding. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan; Notice of Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 25889, 25890 (May

12, 1997).

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review we have determined that the following

margin exists for entries of drill pipe during the period August 11,

1995 through July 31, 1996, and for entries of OCTG other than drill

pipe during the period February 2, 1995 through July 31, 1996:

OCTG

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

Weighted-

average

Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin

(percent)

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

NKK........................................................ 44.20

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

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

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate

[[Page 48597]]

entries. The Department shall issue appraisement instructions directly

to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective

upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all

shipments of OCTG from Japan 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 NKK will

be the rate for the firm as 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 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 review, the

cash deposit rate will continue to be 44.20 percent, which was the

``all others'' rate in the LTFV investigation.

The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

reviews.

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.

These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with

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

of the Department's regulations.

Dated: September 9, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-24470 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P