Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina; Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-810]

Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina; Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of rescission of antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 25, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the

initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina. This review covers the

period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997. Based on information on

the record of this review, all subject merchandise exported by Siderca

to the United States during the period of review (POR) was entered into

a foreign trade zone (FTZ) or under a temporary importation bond (TIB)

and, therefore, was not subject to dumping duties. This review has now

been rescinded as a result of our determination that there were no

consumption entries into the United States during the POR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Osborne 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. NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3019 or (202) 482-0649,

respectively.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act) 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. In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Departments regulations are references

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (62 FR 27296, may 19,

1997).

Scope of the Review

Oil country tubular goods are hollow steel products of circular

cross-section, including 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 review are

currently classified in the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7304.20.20, 7304.20.40, 7304.20.50,

7304.20.60, 7304.20.80, 7304.39.00, 7304.51.50, 7304.20.70, 7304.59.60,

7304.59.80, 7304.90.70, 7305.20.40, 7305.20.60, 7305.20.80, 7305.31.40,

7305.31.60, 7305.39.10, 7305.39.50, 7305.90.10, 7305.90.50, 7306.20.20,

7306.20.30, 7306.20.40, 7306.20.60, 7306.20.80, 7306.30.50, 7306.50.50,

7306.60.70, and 7306.90.10. The HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

[[Page 49090]]

The written description remains dispositive.

Background

We received requests for an administrative review of Siderca

S.A.I.C., an Argentine producer and exporter of OCTG, and Siderca

Corporation, an affiliated U.S. importer and reseller of such

merchandise (collectively, Siderca). Petitions Lone Star Steel and

IPSCO Tubulars, Inc. submitted a request for review on August 29, 1997,

of the anitdumping duty order published in the Federal Register on

August 11, 1995 (60 FR 41055). Petitioner North Star Steel of Ohio

submitted a separate request for review on September 2, 1997. We

initiated this review on September 25, 1997 (62 FR 50292). We received

comments from Siderca and petitioners concerning whether Siderca made

entries from consumption in the United States during the POR.

Petitioners filed duty absorption requests on October 23, 1997 and

October 26, 1997, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its original submission Siderca claimed

that ``it did not export, directly or indirectly, subject merchandise

that was entered for consumption into the United States during the

period of review.'' Siderca also claims that its U.S.A. affiliate,

Siderca Corporation, did not import for consumption any subject

merchandise during the POR.

Petitioners subsequently claimed that publicly available import

data from the Department's IM-145 database contradicted Siderca's

claims that no subject merchandise was entered for consumption during

the POR. Petitioners asserted that Siderca was the only exporter of

Argentine OCTG to the United States, and in fact entered a substantial

quantity of OCTG during the POR. Specifically, petitioners claimed that

949.909 metric tons of Argentine OCTG were entered for consumption

during the POR, and filed an affidavit claiming a sale was made from an

FTZ to a U.S. company during the POR. Petitioners asked the Department

to investigate these sales and to require Siderca to report all U.S.

and home market sales of OCTG made during the POR.

In response, Siderca indicated that it made no U.S. sales or

consumption entries during the POR. Siderca claimed that all of its

shipments to the United States were FTZ or TIB entries, and were

destined for re-export. Siderca indicated it had no knowledge of its

customers having entered covered merchandise into the United States for

consumption. Siderca argued that if any such entries occurred, they

could not be the basis for a review of Siderca. Siderca emphasized that

all customers are aware of Siderca's policy prohibiting entry of

subject merchandise into the United States. Siderca asserted that

entries appearing on the IM-145 were in error, and were most likely TIB

entries mistakenly classified as consumption entries. Siderca also

indicated that the entries in question could have been classified under

the wrong HTS number. For several of the entries listed by petitioners,

Siderca claimed that due to grade specification or dimensions, the

merchandise was incapable of being produced in Argentina. (See November

12, 1997 submission at 9.)

On December 22, 1997, petitioners disputed Siderca's claim that it

was unaware of any consumption entries of OCTG from Argentina, and

that, regardless of Siderca's policy, as the sole producer of OCTG in

Argentina, Siderca was responsible for any U.S. shipments entered for

consumption during the POR.

The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on March 18,

1998, requesting additional information on Siderca's FTZ or TIB

shipments during the period.

Siderca provided sales documentation for all transactions during

the POR indicating that all of its sales were either sold directly to a

third country, were TIB entries for re-export to a third country, were

FTZ entries for re-export to a third country, or were transportation

and exportation (T&E) entries for re-export to a third country. As a

condition of these types of entries Siderca is required to document to

U.S. Customs the final disposition of the merchandise, and to confirm

that all shipments are in fact re-exported.

On March 20, 1998, the Department forwarded a no-shipment inquiry

to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) for circulation to all Customs

ports. Customs did not indicate to the Department that there was any

record of consumption entries of OCTG by Siderca during the POR. On

April 23, 1998, the Department requested additional information from

Customs regarding one Siderca entry appearing in the Department's IM-

115 database. Customs subsequently confirmed that the entry was in fact

a TIB entry and one that had been misclassified as subject merchandise.

(See memorandum to the file, Customs Confirmation of Siderca Entry,

August 24, 1998.) Given Customs' confirmation that there were no

consumption entries of Argentine OCTG, and documentation provided by

Siderca (purchase orders and invoices) that all of its sales of OCTG

during the POR were either TIB entries, FTZ entries for re-export to

third countries, or direct sales to third countries, there is no

evidence on the record of this review of any consumption entries of

Argentine OCTG during the POR. In conclusion, the Department determines

that none of Siderca's sales of subject merchandise were entered into

the United States for consumption during the POR and, thus, there are

no entries to review.

Because Siderca was the only firm for which a review was requested

and it had no U.S. entries for consumption of covered merchandise

during the POR, there is no basis for continuing this administrative

review. We therefore are rescinding this review in accordance with

section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations.

The issue of whether couplings and coupling stock are included

within the scope of the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Argentina

was originally raised by the petitioners in the context of this

administrative review. Because we have determined pursuant to section

351.225(d) of the Department's regulations that the section

351.225(k)(1) analysis is dispositive that couplings and coupling stock

are outside the scope of the order, we have issued separately a final

scope ruling to that effect. (See Final Scope Ruling--Antidumping Duty

Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, August 28, 1998.)

Finally, our decision to rescind this review renders moot the

petitioners' request for a duty absorption inquiry.

The cash deposit rate for all firms will continue to be the rate

established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding

(i.e., 1.36 percent).

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 351.221.

Dated: August 28, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-24600 Filed 9-11-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M