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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]

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

Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On June 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the

final results of administrative review of the antidumping order on

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea (63 FR

32833). The period of review is November 1, 1995, through October 31,

1996. Subsequent to the publication of the final results, we received

comments from respondents and petitioners alleging various ministerial

errors. After analyzing the comments submitted, we are amending our

final results to correct certain ministerial errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marian Wells or Zak Smith;

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, US Department of

Commerce; 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone numbers (202) 482-6309 or (202) 482-1279, respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930

(``the Act''), as amended, are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Additionally, unless otherwise

indicated all citations to the Department of Commerce's (``the

Department's'') regulations are to 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 16, 1998, the Department published the final results of

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded

non-alloy steel pipe from Korea covering the period November 1, 1995,

through October 31, 1996 (see, Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63

FR 32833 (``Final Results''). Subsequently, the following interested

parties submitted ministerial error allegations: SeAH Steel Coporation

(``SeAH'') and Hyundai Pipe Company Limited (``Hyundai'')(collectively

``the respondents''), and Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation, Sawhill

Tubular Division-Armco, Inc., and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively

``the petitioners'').

A summary of each allegation along with the Department's response

is included below. We are hereby amending our final results, pursuant

to 19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the correction of those errors which

are clerical in nature.

Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations

Allegation 1: Hyundai alleges that in the concordance program, the

Department inadvertently used a different date of sale for Hyundai's

U.S. sales than that specified in the Final Results.

Department's Position: We agree with Hyundai and have altered the

concordance program such that the appropriate date of sale, as

discussed in our Final Results, is used in both the margin and

concordance programs.

Allegation 2: Respondents allege that in the concordance program

the Department inadvertently applied its general and administrative

expenses (G&A) and interest expense adjustment factor on a compounding

basis for each

[[Page 39072]]

subsequent sale within a control number.

Department's Position: We agree with respondents and have altered

the concordance program in order to eliminate the compounding of the

adjustment factor for G&A and interest expenses.

Allegation 3: SeAH states that the Department limited the coverage

of U.S. sales to the period November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996

and, in doing so, excluded sales made prior to November 1, 1995, but

entered during the period of review (``POR'') from the concordance

program. The petitioners argue that the Department correctly limited

the sales analyzed to those sales made during the POR.

SeAH also asserts that the Department excluded sales from the year

1995 by incorrectly naming the months of 1995 in the concordance

program. According to SeAH, this resulted in the absence of all 1995

sales in the concordance table and therefore, the use of constructed

value for all 1995 sales.

SeAH further states that the Department has used two different

sales date variables in the concordance and margin programs.

Department's Position: We agree with SeAH on all three issues.

Accordingly, we have altered the concordance program in order to

include export price (EP) sales made before the POR but entered during

the POR (see, comment 2 of the Final Results, at 32836). Furthermore,

since we incorrectly named the variable representing sales during 1995,

we have altered the concordance program to correct this problem.

Finally, we corrected the inconsistent use of date variables in the

margin program by using the contract date for all EP sales. For

constructed export price (``CEP'') sales, we use the variable SALEDTU

(sale date) as discussed in our Final Results.

Allegation 4: SeAH maintains that the Department incorrectly

excluded certain sales with entry dates during the POR in its margin

analysis program.

Department's Position: We agree with SeAH. However, this error only

applies to EP sales. For EP sales, we have substituted the field name

ENTRDTU for SHIPDT2U in the margin analysis program to correct this

error.

Allegation 5: SeAH alleges that the Department double counted U.S.

commissions by adding the amount of commissions to the foreign market

price and deducting commissions from U.S. price.

Department's Position: We agree with SeAH. To correct this error,

we have eliminated the deduction of commissions in the calculation of

U.S. price.

Allegation 6: SeAH states that the Department's adjustment to duty

drawback was incorrectly calculated for CEP sales. SeAH argues that the

Department has negated the claimed duty drawback and calculated a

downward adjustment to the U.S. price.

Department's Position: We agree with SeAH. To correct this error,

we have recalculated the duty drawback for SeAH's CEP sales (see SeAH

Correction of Ministerial Errors Calculation Memorandum, June 9, 1998).

Allegation 7: Petitioners argue that the Department neglected to

include any selling expenses in the formula for calculating constructed

value (``CV'') profit while including such expenses when calculating

total CV.

Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners that we made a

ministerial error when calculating CV profit. When calculating CV

profit we applied the profit rate to a cost of production figure

exclusive of certain selling expenses. We did this because the profit

rate was also calculated on a basis exclusive of the same selling

expenses. Thus, we intentionally did not include selling expenses when

calculating CV profit, and therefore, this is not a ministerial error.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of the amended margin calculations, the following

weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period November 1,

1995 through October 31, 1996:

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

Percentage

Manufacturer/Exporter margin

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

Hyundai.................................................... 2.64

SeAH....................................................... 2.63

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

In accordance with the methodology in the Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of

Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea

(62 FR 55574), October 27, 1997, we calculated exporter/importer-

specific assessment values by dividing the total antidumping duties due

for each importer by the number of tons used to determine the duties

due. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting per-ton

dollar amount against each ton of the merchandise entered by these

importers during the review period.

We will also direct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits of

estimated antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance

with the procedures discussed in the Final Results and as amended by

this determination. The amended deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

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

notice and shall remain in effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final 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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with

sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: July 15, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-19395 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P