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

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 October 27, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the

final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of

Korea covering the period of review from April 28, 1992, through

October 31, 1993. Based on the correction of certain ministerial errors

made in the final results, we are publishing this amendment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Panfeld, Mark Ross, Thomas

Schauer, or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import

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

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

20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

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

effect as of December 31, 1994. In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Commerce Department's regulations are

to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1, 1997).

Background

On October 27, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the final results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the

Republic of Korea (62 FR 55574). The review covered seven

manufacturers/exporters and the period April 28, 1992, through October

31, 1993. After publication of our final results, we received timely

allegations from petitioners and respondents that we had made

ministerial errors in calculating the final results. We corrected our

[[Page 2201]]

calculations, where we agree that we made ministerial errors, in

accordance with section 751(f) of the Tariff Act.

Analysis of Ministerial-Error Allegations Received from Interested

Parties

Comment 1: Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (PSP), alleges that the

Department made a ministerial error in calculating the interest expense

factor used to derive the per-unit interest expenses used in the

calculation of the cost of production and constructed value. The

company notes that in the 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, 55584 (October 27, 1997) (Final Results), the Department stated

that ``for the final results, we have recalculated the G&A expense and

interest expense factors using the methodology we required in our

November 8, 1996, supplemental questionnaire.'' PSP argues, however,

that the methodology employed to calculate the interest expense factor

in the final results is different from the methodology required by the

November 8, 1996, supplemental questionnaire. PSP asserts that as a

result of this ministerial error the Department overstated the interest

expense factor and, consequently, overstated the dumping margin.

Department's Position: We agree with PSP that a ministerial error

occurred in our calculation of the interest expense factor. It was our

intention to calculate PSP's interest expense factor using the

methodology we requested in the November 8, 1996, supplemental

questionnaire. Specifically, we intended that the expenses in the

numerator of the factor calculation include a portion of the

affiliates' interest expense amounts determined by applying the ratio

of resales (purchases from PSP) of all products (both subject and non-

subject) by the affiliates over total sales to the calculated interest

expense as shown on the affiliates' financial statements. We have

applied this methodology for the amended final results.

Comment 2: Petitioners allege that, from the Department's

discussion of duty drawback in the Final Results at 55577, the

Department clearly intended to limit the duty-drawback adjustment to no

more than the duties paid on the coil included in the pipe exported to

the United States. Petitioners contend, however, that under certain

conditions the Department's computer programming language will not

accomplish this goal in its calculations. Petitioners provide revised

programming instructions that they suggest will correct the problem.

Respondents agree with petitioners' allegation but contend that a

correction is unnecessary because it will not affect the margins.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners' ministerial-error

allegation and have corrected the problem for those respondents that

reported that they received duty drawback under the fixed-rate

provision, i.e., Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.,

and PSP. In the final results, where respondents reported that they

received duty drawback under the fixed-rate provision, we adjusted the

drawback claim to reflect the amount of duty drawback actually paid by

multiplying the reported duty drawback by the factor converting

theoretical weight to actual weight. However, due to an error in our

programming instructions, under certain conditions, i.e., where the

conversion factor is greater than 1, our adjustment to the drawback

claim did not result in a value that reflected the amount of duty

drawback actually paid. To correct this problem, we altered the

programming language so that duty drawback on each sale is only

multiplied by the conversion factor when the conversion factor is less

than one.

Comment 3: Petitioners contend that, in collapsing Korea Iron &

Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO), and Union Steel Co., Ltd. (Union), the

Department erred in its application of the test for sales below the

cost of production. Petitioners contend that only the sales by Union

were subject to a below-cost examination. However, petitioners assert

that, due to ministerial errors, the Department actually examined sales

by both companies for below-cost transactions. Petitioners provide

programming instructions to correct the alleged ministerial error.

Respondents contend that petitioners' ministerial-error allegation

is incorrect because the programming language indicates that KISCO's

sales are excluded from the below-cost-of-production examination.

Respondents further contend that the change petitioners request will

not affect the margin.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners that a ministerial

error occurred in our application of the test for sales below the cost

of production. As noted in the Final Results at 55588, in calculating a

single weighted-average margin for KISCO and Union, we did not intend

to subject KISCO's home market sales to a below-cost-of-production

examination. We have corrected the ministerial error for the amended

final results.

Comment 4: Petitioners contend that the Department made a

ministerial error in the calculation of assessment values for Korea

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. Petitioners assert that this error results in the

calculation of separate assessment values for purchase price and

exporter's sales price transactions made through the same importer.

Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., contends that the calculation of

separate assessment values for different types of sales made through

the same importer is not a ministerial error. The company further

contends that in the case at hand the methodology employed does not

affect the overall amount paid by the importer in question.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioners. For this case, we

did not intend to calculate separate assessment values for purchase

price and exporter's sales price transactions made through the same

importer. For the amended final results, we have modified the

assessment programming language so that only one per-unit value is

calculated for each importer.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of the amended margin calculations, the following

percentage weighted-average margins exist for the period April 28,

1992, through October 31, 1993:

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

Margin

Company (percent)

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

Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd........................................ * 1.71

Korea Iron & Steel Co., Ltd./Union Steel Co., Ltd............ 1.52

Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.................................... * 3.15

Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.................................... 5.31

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

* This rate did not change as a result of our corrections for

ministerial errors.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Applying the

procedures set forth in the Final Results at 55589, we will calculate,

wherever possible, an exporter/importer-specific assessment value. In

addition, 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 of this notice and shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

[[Page 2202]]

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 serves as a reminder to parties subject to an

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

the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to

sanction.

This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with

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

and 19 CFR 353.28.

Dated: January 6, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-801 Filed 1-13-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P