Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany: Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-820]

Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany: Amendment of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On March 18, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') published the final results of its administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on Small Diameter Circular Seamless

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany

(63 FR 13217) covering the period January 27, 1995 through July 31,

1996. Based on the correction of a ministerial error made in the final

results, we are publishing this amendment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Decker or Linda Ludwig, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International

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

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

0196 or 482-3833, 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 by the Uruguay

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

indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

On March 18, 1998, the Department published the final results of

its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Small

Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From Germany (63 FR 13217). This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Mannesmannroehren-

Werke AG (``MRW''), and Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corporation (``MPS'')

(collectively ``Mannesmann''), for the period January 27, 1995 through

July 31, 1996. After publication of our final results, we received

timely allegations from petitioner and Mannesmann that we had made

ministerial errors in calculating the final results. The petitioner

filed a timely rebuttal to Mannesmann's ministerial error allegations.

We corrected our calculations, where we agree that we made ministerial

errors, in accordance with section 751 (h) of the Tariff Act.

Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations Received From Interested

Parties

We received two ministerial error allegations from Mannesmann and

one from petitioner. First, Mannesmann contends that the Department

neglected to convert certain indirect selling expenses and inventory

carrying costs (RINDIRSU and INVCARU) to U.S. dollars from Deutsche

Marks. Mannesmann notes that these variables are created using a factor

multiplied by the cost of manufacturing (TOTCOMCV) which is reported in

Deutsche Marks. Mannesmann asserts that the Department should correct

the final results by converting RINDIRSU and INVCARU to U.S. dollars.

As defined by section 751(h) Act, the term ``ministerial error''

includes errors ``in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic

function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying,

duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error

which the [Department] considers ministerial.'' We agree with

Mannesmann that RINDIRSU and INVCARU should be converted to U.S.

dollars. This type of unintentional error meets the definition of

ministerial error contained in the Act. We have made the suggested

correction for the amended final results.

Second, Mannesmann asserts that the factors for general and

administrative expenses (GNA) and interest expenses are based upon cost

data as reported by Mannesmann and not as adjusted by the Department.

Therefore, Mannesmann argues, these GNA and interest factors should be

applied before the Department's billet cost adjustment is made to

material costs.

Petitioner argues that Mannesmann has made no showing that applying

the GNA and expense factors to Mannesmann's adjusted cost of

manufacturing (COM) was an inadvertent or unintentional act, as opposed

to a deliberate, methodological choice by the Department. Petitioner

cites Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 1338,

1340-

[[Page 20580]]

41 (CIT 1984) as stating that under the ministerial error procedure the

Department may only correct an inadvertence or mistake that involves no

discretionary considerations. Petitioner further contends that the

Department applied the interest expense and GNA factors to Mannesmann's

adjusted COM correctly under the law. Petitioner asserts that

Mannesmann fails to cite any previous case where, unlike in this case,

the Department performed its build-up of cost of production (COP) by

applying GNA and interest expense factors to a COM that values a major

input at the affiliates' reported cost of production even though the

Department expressly disregarded those costs. Petitioner argues that it

is standard Department practice that all COP/CV cost calculations be

based on a respondent's manufacturing costs as adjusted, when

appropriate, under the major input rule.

We agree with petitioner that this issue is methodological in

nature and have not made this correction in the amended final results.

We note that the same calculation was made in the preliminary results

of review, and Mannesmann did not comment on it in its case brief.

Third, petitioner argues that the Department erred in the

calculation of net price (NPRICOP) for use in the cost test. Petitioner

asserts that the calculations performed understate the adjustments to

GRSUPRH (gross unit price) and overstate NPRICOP. Petitioner notes that

Mannesmann's failure at verification on certain inland freight charges

(INLFTC2H) essentially resulted in the Department's application of

adverse facts available in the calculation of normal value. The

petitioner further argues that the Department's calculation of NPRICOP

in the below-cost test rewards Mannesmann by raising net price, thereby

tending to cause fewer sales to fall below cost.

We disagree with petitioner that this issue is clerical in nature.

We find that this issue is methodological in nature and have not made

this correction in the amended final results. Since most of

petitioner's argument is business proprietary, please see Amended Final

Analysis Memorandum for a more detailed explanation of this issue. We

note that the same calculation was made in the preliminary results of

review, and petitioner did not comment on it in its case brief.

Amended Final Results of Review

We determine that the following weighted-average margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)

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

Mannesmann................................ 1/27/95--7/31/96 21.94

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will

calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on

the entered value of each entry of subject merchandise during the POR.

We will direct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits of

estimated antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The amended

deposit requirements are effective for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of publication date of this notice and will remain in

effect until the publication of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and 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 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of

return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Timely

written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

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

353.22.

Dated: April 16, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-10999 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P