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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-501]

Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From

Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Dennis McClure,

Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import

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

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

20230; telephone (202) 482-0650 or (202) 482-3530, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

On October 2, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the final results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube

from Turkey (62 FR 51629). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 1993,

through April 30, 1994.

On October 16, 1997, the Borusan Group (Borusan) filed two timely

clerical error allegations. On October 21, 1997, Allied Tube & Conduit

and Wheatland Tube Company (petitioners) replied to the allegations

made by Borusan, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.28. On October 24, 1997,

Borusan filed unsolicited and untimely comments in response to the

petitioners' October 21, 1997, submission. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.

353.31, we did not consider Borusan's October 24, 1997, submission in

our analysis, since it was submitted after the October 16, 1997,

deadline for submitting comments on ministerial error allegations.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain welded

carbon steel pipe and tube products with an outside diameter of 0.375

inch or more but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness. 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. These products,

commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe and tube, are

produced to various American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

specifications, most notably A-120, A-53, or A-135.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and

customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Allegations of Clerical Errors

Allegation 1: Inclusion of Inventory Carrying Costs in Constructed

Value (CV)

Borusan alleges that because Borusan's sales to the United States

were purchase price (PP) sales the Department should not have included

inventory carrying costs in the calculation of CV.

The petitioners argue that Borusan's allegation is methodological,

not ministerial, in nature. The petitioners cite to Policy Bulletin

94.2, ``Treatment of Inventory Carrying Costs in Constructed Value''

(March 25, 1994).

DOC Position: We do not find this issue to be ministerial in

nature, because it is a substantive argument for a new methodology.

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. United States, No. 97-2, Slip Op. at 20

(CIT January 8, 1997). Accordingly, we have not considered this issue

because it is outside the scope of permissible corrections under 19

C.F.R. 353.28(d). Id. For more discussion, see Memorandum from the Team

to Richard W. Moreland, dated November 18, 1997 (Analysis Memorandum).

Allegation 2: Calculation of Weighted-Average Packing Costs

Borusan alleges that the Department should have used production

quantities, instead of sales quantities, to weight-average the indexed

packing costs used in calculating cost of production and foreign market

value.

The petitioners respond that the Department's use of sales

quantities does not appear to be a ministerial error, noting that the

use of sales quantity is reasonable because packing costs are largely

related to the shipment, not production, of merchandise.

DOC Position: In the final results of the 1994-95 administrative

review of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey, we

indexed all costs, including packing expenses, using production

quantities instead of sales quantities. See SAS programs used in the

Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 62 FR

27013 (May 16, 1997). Therefore, in accordance with 19 C.F.R.

353.28(c), we are amending the final results of this administrative

review to correct this ministerial error. For more discussion, see

Analysis Memorandum.

Amended Final Results of Review

Upon correction of the ministerial error regarding packing costs,

we have determined that the following margin for Borusan exists for the

period indicated below:

[[Page 62759]]

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period percent

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

Borusan.................................... 5/1/93-4/30/94 3.97

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

For Borusan, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 2.57

percent, the rate effective since May 16, 1997, which was published in

the Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 62 FR

27013 (May 16, 1997).

For merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to

be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final

results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-

specific rate. If the exporter is not a firm covered in this or a prior

review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the

cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise. If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be

14.74 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice is 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 reminds parties subject to administrative

protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to comply is a violation of

the APO.

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 353.28.

Dated: November 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-30958 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P