Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the

Republic of Korea.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel

pipe from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is November 1,

1995 through October 31, 1996. This review covers imports of pipe from

four producers/exporters.

We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have

been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted

in our final results, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties based on the difference between the U.S. price and

normal value.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from

the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Marian Wells, or

Rosa Jeong, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4087, 482-6309, and 482-

1278 respectively.

The 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 of Commerce's (the

Department's) regulations refer to the regulations, codified at 19 CFR

part 353, April 1997.

Background

Since the publication of Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results, Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review,

on July 15, 1997 (62 FR 37865), the following has occurred.

On July 25, 1997, the Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire to Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO) and Union Steel

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union) asking about issues of affiliation. The

companies responded to the affiliation questions on August 6, 1997. We

notified Union and KISCO in an October 22, 1997, letter that their

responses should be consolidated into one response (see ``Collapsing

Union and KISCO'' in this notice). The Department received a

consolidated response from these companies on November 17, 1997.

On October 30, 1997, we requested respondents to resubmit their

data using purchase order/contract date, as opposed to invoice date, as

date of sale for U.S. transactions. We received partially updated sales

databases with

[[Page 64560]]

the new date of sale from SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and Shinho

Steel Co., Ltd. (Shinho) on November 17, 1997. (In the case of Hyundai

Pipe Co. Ltd. (Hyundai), this information had been previously requested

and supplied to the Department.) Union/KISCO's collapsed submission

received on November 17, 1997 did not include the change in the date of

sale.

Supplemental questionnaires were sent to respondents in November

1997. Responses to our supplemental questionnaires regarding level of

trade (LOT) were received by November 13, 1997. Additional supplemental

questionnaires responses from all respondents are due December 3, 1997.

We intend to issue the final results of this review not later than

120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm

(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end,

beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes

are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for

the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and

other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-

conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related

uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing

applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing

used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-

bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm

equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is

also included in this order.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description

outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line

pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe

and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished

conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative

Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and

Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L

line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe

specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe

specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined

above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas

pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.

Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 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 HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description

of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Collapsing KISCO and Union

On May 22 and June 30, 1997, the petitioners, Allied Tube and

Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular Division-Armco, Inc. and Wheatland

Tube Company, argued that because of the strong possibility of

manipulation of prices and production, the Department should treat

Union and KISCO as a single, collapsed entity and calculate a single

combined antidumping duty rate for both companies. In determining

whether companies should be collapsed, the Department makes three

inquiries. First, the Department examines whether the companies in

question are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 771(33) of

the Act. Second, the Department examines whether the companies in

question have similar production facilities, such that retooling would

not be required to shift production from one company to another. Third,

the Department examines whether there exists other evidence indicating

a significant potential for the manipulation of prices or production.

The types of factors the Department considers in determining whether

there is a significant potential for the manipulation of prices or

production include: (1) The level of common ownership; (2) the

existence of interlocking officers or directors (e.g., whether

managerial employees or board members of one company sit on the board

of directors of the other affiliated parties); and (3) the existence of

intertwined operations. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat

Products from Korea, 60 FR 65284 (December 19, 1995) (Korean Steel).

In the first administrative review of this order, the petitioners

also argued that Union and KISCO should be collapsed, and the

Department agreed. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574

(October 27, 1997) (Pipe First Review). In the present proceeding, we

again closely analyzed the relevant factors in light of the information

on record of the present review. We determined that the factors that

led to the collapsing decision in the first review continue to exist in

the present review. Therefore, we have collapsed Union and KISCO and

calculated a single antidumping duty rate for the collapsed entity.

Date of Sale

When determining which sales fall within the period of review

(POR), respondents used either invoice date, tax invoice date, or

shipment date (collectively referred to hereafter as ``invoice date'')

as the date of sale. Most respondents claimed that the invoice date is

what is maintained in their corporate records and that use of invoice

date is in accordance with the Department's stated practice (see

Memorandum from Susan G. Esserman ``Date of Sale Methodology Under New

Regulations,'' March 29, 1996).

Based on our review of the responses, we determined invoice date

should not be used as the date of sale for U.S. transactions. (For home

market transactions, we find that invoice date reasonably approximates

the date on which the material terms of sale are made and have used

this as our date of sale.) While each company has a slightly different

U.S. sales process, consistent throughout the responses is the notion

that price and quantity are established, then the factory produces the

subject merchandise, and finally, after a significant period of time,

the product is shipped and an invoice is issued. Based on this

understanding of the companies' U.S. sales process, we instructed

respondents to report as the date of sale the date that will reasonably

approximate the time at which the material terms of sale are set (see,

Memorandum for Richard W. Moreland, dated October 30, 1997).

The above-mentioned change in the U.S. date of sale necessitated

changes to the U.S. sales listings of respondents to correct the date

of sale. As a consequence of the change in the U.S. date of sale, home

market sales listings also have to be revised to include sales of

identical and similar merchandise that are contemporaneous with U.S.

sales. Due to the late date on which we informed respondents of the

need to change the U.S. date of sale, all respondents were not able to

modify fully their U.S. and home market sales listings in time for

these preliminary results of review. Therefore, we have used the most

current sales listings available to the Department. Hyundai, SeAH, and

Shinho partially revised

[[Page 64561]]

their U.S. sales listings by changing the date of sale for previously

reported transactions. Union/KISCO was unable to provide a collapsed

sales listing reflecting the change in the U.S. date of sale in time

for these preliminary results. As a result, we are using invoice date

as the date of Union/KISCO's U.S. sales. Furthermore, for all

respondents, we have made comparisons to constructed value (CV) for

U.S. sales that do not have contemporaneous home market sales matches.

Resales of Subject Merchandise

Some companies purchase subject merchandise from unaffiliated

manufacturers and then further manufacture it into products also within

the scope of this review. For purposes of these preliminary results, we

have included sales of all such further-manufactured subject

merchandise in our analysis.

SeAH

During the POR, SeAH purchased a small quantity of subject

merchandise from an unaffiliated producer, and subsequently resold the

merchandise in the United States. According to SeAH, the unaffiliated

producer was aware of the ultimate destination of the merchandise at

the time of sale to SeAH (see SeAH response of March 24, 1997, p. 33).

In their June 24, 1997 submission, petitioners argue that products

purchased from the unaffiliated producer and resold by SeAH should be

included in SeAH's U.S. and home market sales listings. To support this

argument, petitioners cite to Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from

Japan, 61 FR 67308 (December 20, 1997) (Cement and Clinker).

Regarding U.S. sales, the Department examines the first party in

the distribution chain selling with the knowledge that the merchandise

is destined for the U.S. See 19 CFR 353.41(b), Certain Pasta from

Italy: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Postpone of Final Determination, 60 FR 1344, 1348-1349

(January 19, 1996) (Pasta from Italy). In SeAH's case, the unaffiliated

producer knew at the time of the sale to SeAH that the merchandise was

destined for the United States. Therefore, the appropriate export price

for that merchandise would be the price between the unaffiliated

producer and SeAH (see Pasta from Italy). Moreover, the unaffiliated

producer would be the appropriate party to be reviewed with respect to

these resales.

The case cited by petitioners dealt with home market sales.

Contrary to petitioners' assertions, the Department excluded all

resales of merchandise purchased from an unaffiliated producer from its

foreign market value (FMV) calculation in Cement and Clinker to the

extent that they were separately identifiable. It was only in those

cases where resales were inextricably commingled with the respondent's

own product sales and where the inclusion of these resales did not

distort the FMV calculation that the Department allowed them to be

included among the respondent's home market sales. Therefore, this

precedent does not provide a basis for including resales of this

merchandise in the home market in our calculation of normal value (NV).

Consequently, products purchased from this unaffiliated producer and

resold into the U.S. market have not been included among SeAH's U.S. or

home market sales listings.

Product Comparisons

We calculated monthly, weighted-average, NVs. Where possible, we

compared U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise in Korea. When

identical merchandise was not sold during the relevant contemporaneous

period, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign

like product (see section 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act).

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

For sales to the United States, we used export price (EP) or

constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b)

of the Act, as appropriate.

In accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we

calculated an EP where the merchandise was sold directly to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and

CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. In

accordance with sections 772(b), (c) and (d) of the Act, we calculated

a CEP for sales made by affiliated U.S. resellers that took place after

importation into the United States. EP and CEP were based on the packed

C&F, delivered, CIF duty paid, or ex-dock duty paid price to

unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States.

As appropriate, we made deductions for discounts and rebates, including

early payment discounts. We added to U.S. price amounts for duty

drawback, pursuant to section 772 (c)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

that such rebates were not excessive (see Pipe First Review). We also

made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, foreign

brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs

brokerage, U.S. customs duties, harbor maintenance fees, merchandise

processing fees, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to

warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer).

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from

CEP those selling expenses associated with economic activities

occurring in the United States, including commissions, direct selling

expenses (credit costs, introduction allowances, and warranty

expenses), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses,

where applicable. Credit expenses were offset by interest revenues,

where applicable. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales

and determined that the quantity of each company's sales in its home

market was more than five percent of the quantity of its sales to the

U.S. market. Consequently, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act,

we based NV on home market sales.

Certain respondents reported sales in the home market of

``overrun'' merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater quantity of pipe than

the customer ordered due to overproduction). Respondents claimed that

we should disregard ``overrun'' sales in the home market as outside the

ordinary course of trade.

Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be

based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the

usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

Ordinary course of trade is defined in section 771(15) of the Act. We

analyzed the following criteria to determine whether ``overrun'' sales

differ from other sales of commercial pipe: (1) ratio of overrun sales

to total home market sales; (2) number of overrun customers compared to

total number of home market customers; (3) average price of an overrun

sale compared to average price of a commercial sale; (4) profitability

of overrun sales compared to profitability of commercial sales; and (5)

average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of

a commercial sale. Based on our analysis of these criteria and on an

analysis of the terms of sale, we found certain overrun sales to be

outside the ordinary course of trade. This analysis is consistent with

[[Page 64562]]

the analysis sustained by the Court of International Trade in Laclede

Steel Co. V. United States, Slip. Op. 94-114 (1995).

Hyundai and SeAH had sales in the home market to affiliated

customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we

compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated

customers, net of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling

expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to the affiliated

party was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the

unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party were at arm's length and included those sales in our

calculation of NV pursuant to 19 CFR 353.45(a).

We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(A) and B(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments for

movement expenses, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, for

inland freight. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in

cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the

merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as

for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR. 353.56. For

comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling

expenses incurred on home market sales (credit expenses as offset by

interest revenue) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit

costs, introduction allowances, and warranty expenses). For comparisons

to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses

incurred on home market sales. Since no respondent had U.S. direct

selling expenses other than those deducted from the starting price in

calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, we made no

additions to normal value in making COS adjustments. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for indirect selling expenses incurred

on home market sales to offset commissions in EP calculations;

specifically, we deducted from normal value the lesser of (1) the

amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or

(2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market

sales for a particular product, including inventory carrying costs in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56.

Level of Trade/CEP Offset

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

Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA at 829-

831, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based

on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the Department is

unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the comparison

market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the

U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market.

We determine that sales are made at different levels of trade if

they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent).

Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not

sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the

stages of marketing. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and

Tubes from India; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 23760, 23761(May 1, 1997). See, also, 19

CFR 351.412 (62 FR 27296, 27414-27415 (May 19, 1997)) for a concise

description of this practice.

In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained

information from each respondent regarding the marketing stage involved

in the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of

the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of

distribution. (For further information on the LOT analysis for each

company, see the Memorandum from the team to S. Kuhbach of December 1,

1997.) Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at

827, in identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales we

considered the selling functions reflected in the starting prices

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling

activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and

profit under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if claimed

levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the

seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of

trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and

activities of the seller should be dissimilar.

When CEP sales have been made in the United States, in SeAH's case,

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset'' may

be made provided that two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a

LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of

the CEP; and (2) the data available do not permit a determination that

there is a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at

different levels of trade in the comparison market.

Shinho, Hyundai, and KISCO/Union

Based on an analysis of the selling functions, class of customers,

and level of selling expenses, we found that sales made by Shinho,

Hyundai and KISCO/Union were at a single stage in the marketing process

in both the home market and the United States (i.e., one LOT exists in

home market and one LOT exists in the United States with respect to

each company). Moreover, because the stages of marketing in the two

markets were not substantially dissimilar, we have preliminarily found

that sales in both markets are at the same LOT and consequently no LOT

adjustment is warranted.

SeAH

With respect to SeAH's EP sales, we found that sales were made at a

single stage in the marketing process in both the home market and the

United States, and that these stages of marketing were not

substantially dissimilar. Therefore, we have preliminarily found that

SeAH's EP and home market sales are at the same LOT and that no LOT

adjustment is needed.

SeAH asserts that its home market sales are at a more advanced LOT

than its CEP sales because the CEP LOT does not include inventory

maintenance or expenses associated with arranging for freight. We have

preliminarily determined that these differences in selling activities

are not substantial and, therefore, that SeAH's home market and CEP

sales are made at the same marketing stages. Consequently, we

preliminarily determine that SeAH's home market and U.S. sales are at

the same LOT and no CEP offset is warranted.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on timely allegations filed by the petitioners, the

Department initiated a cost of production (COP) investigation of Union/

KISCO to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP. See

Memoranda from Craig Matney to Office Director Susan Kuhbach, dated

June 24 and June 25, 1997.

Because we disregarded sales below the COP in the less-than-fair-

value (LTFV) investigation for Hyundai, SeAH, and Shinho (see Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea: Notice of Final Court Decision

and Amended Final Determination, 60 FR 55833, November 3, 1995 (Pipe

LTFV)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of

the foreign product under consideration for the determination of NV in

this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by

[[Page 64563]]

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of these

companies' home market.

We conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the

weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of

materials, fabrication and general expenses, and packing costs.

B. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a

respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below 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 made at prices below the COP, we disregarded the

below-cost sales because such sales were found to be made within an

extended period of time in ``substantial quantities'' in accordance

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Moreover, based on

comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we

determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices

which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period

of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where all

contemporaneous sales of a specific product were made at prices below

the COP, we calculated NV based on CV, in accordance with section

773(a)(4) of the Act.

We found that all respondents made home market sales at below COP

prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities.

Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit for the

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

excluded these sales from our analysis in accordance with section

773(b)(1) of the Act.

Constructed Value

Where NV could not be based on home market sales either because (1)

there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product or (2) all

contemporaneous sales of the comparison product failed the COP test, we

compared U.S. prices to CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the

Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials of the

product sold in the United States, plus amounts for general expenses,

home market profit and U.S. packing costs. We calculated each

respondent's CV based on the methodology described in the ``Calculation

of COP'' section of this notice, above. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual amounts incurred and realized by

respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign

like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the

foreign country to calculate general expenses and home market profit.

For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56 for COS

differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by

deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made

COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home

market sales. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for indirect

selling expenses incurred on home market sales to offset U.S.

commissions in EP comparisons; specifically, we deducted from normal

value the lesser of: (1) The amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale

for a particular product, or (2) the amount of indirect selling

expenses incurred on the home market sales for a particular product.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the

Act. Currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the

Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a

daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars

unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is our practice to

find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. See Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 61 FR 35188, 35192 (July 5, 1996). The

benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the

past 40 business days.

Preliminary Results of the Review

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

following margin exists for the period November 1, 1995, through

October 31, 1996:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Hyundai..................................................... 4.10

Union/KISCO................................................. 2.36

Shinho...................................................... 3.34

SeAH........................................................ 7.71

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

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may also

request a hearing within ten days of publication. If requested, a

hearing will be held March 2, 1998. Interested parties may submit case

briefs pertaining to non-verification issues by January 12, 1998.

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case

briefs, may be filed not later than January 20, 1998. Briefs pertaining

to verification issues must be submitted by February 26, 1998, with

rebuttal briefs not later than March 5, 1998. The Department will issue

a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such

briefs, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary

results.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance

with the methodology in Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea (62 FR

55574, October 27, 1997), we calculated exporter/importer-specific

assessment values by dividing the total dumping duties due for each

importer by the number of tons used to determine the duties due. We

will direct Customs to assess the resulting per-ton dollar amount

against each ton of the merchandise entered by these importers' during

the review period.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for

all shipments of steel wire rope from Korea entered, or withdrawn from

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

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be the rates established in the final results of this

administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required for

those companies whose weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less

than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or

exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV

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

be the most recent rate published in the final determination or

[[Page 64564]]

final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an

individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, the previous 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)

if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this

or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 4.80 percent,

the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value

investigation. See Pipe LTFV.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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

sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-32063 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P