Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; and Partial Revocation

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-805]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; and

Partial Revocation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review and partial revocation.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by one respondent, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is conducting two administrative reviews of

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

tube from Mexico (A-201-805). These reviews cover one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during two

periods of review (POR): April 28, 1992, through October 31, 1993, (the

92/93 POR) and November 1, 1993, through October 31, 1994 (the 93/94

POR).

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

the foreign market value (FMV) for the first period of review (POR). If

these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of

administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties based upon the difference between the United States

price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested

to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATES: June 25, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, Nancy Decker or Linda

Ludwig, Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482-0195 (Drury), (202) 482-0196 (Decker), or (202)

482-3833 (Ludwig).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the

Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

The Department published an antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico on November 2, 1992

(57 FR 49453). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for

the 92/93 POR on November 3, 1993 (58 FR 58682). On November 19, 1993,

respondent Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico. On November

30, 1993, respondent Tuberia Nacional S.A. de C.V. (``TUNA'') requested

that the Department conduct an administrative review of this order. We

initiated this review on January 18, 1994. See 59 FR 2593 (January 18,

1994).

The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 93/94 POR

on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56034). On November 29, 1994, respondent

Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded

non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico. On November 30, 1994,

respondent Western American Manufacturing, Inc. (``Western American'')

requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of this

order. We initiated this review on December 15, 1994. See 59 FR 64650

(December 15, 1994).

The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'').

Partial Termination of Review

On November 30, 1995, TUNA withdrew its request for administrative

review for the 92/93 POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). Ordinarily,

parties have 90 days from the date of publication of notice of

initiation within which to withdraw a request for review. In this case,

the record indicates that petitioners have no objection to the

withdrawal and in fact had previously requested that the Department

terminate the review of TUNA (See Letter to Secretary of Commerce from

R. Alan Luberda, dated May 11, 1994). In addition, the review of TUNA

has not progressed substantially and there would be no undue burden on

the parties or the Department as a result of said withdrawal.

Therefore, the Department has determined that it would be reasonable to

grant the withdrawal at this time. In accordance with section

353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations, the Department has

terminated the 92/93 administrative review insofar as it regards TUNA.

On March 14, 1995, Western American withdrew its request for

administrative review for the 93/94 POR, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.22(a)(5). Ordinarily, parties have 90 days from the date of

publication of notice of initiation within which to withdraw a request

for review. In this case, the

[[Page 34191]]

record indicates that petitioners have no objection to the withdrawal.

In addition, the review of Western American has not progressed

substantially and there would be no undue burden on the parties or the

Department as a result of said withdrawal. Therefore, the Department

has determined that it would be reasonable to grant the withdrawal at

this time. In accordance with section 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's

regulations, the Department has terminated the 93/94 administrative

review insofar as it regards to Western American.

Scope of the Review

The review of ``circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube''

covers products of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4

millimeters (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).

Those pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they

may also be called structural or mechanical tubing in certain

applications. Standard pipes and tubes 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 and mechanical applications, such

as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as

conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or

those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard

pipe applications. 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,

cold-drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. In

accordance with the Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry (56

FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L line pipe

specification, or pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe

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

specifications, which fall within the physical parameters as outlined

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

pipelines, are outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.

Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.3010.00,

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. These HTS item numbers are provided

for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain

dispositive.

The 92/93 POR is April 28, 1992 through October 31, 1993, and the

93/94 POR is November 1, 1993 through October 31, 1994. Subsequent to

the partial terminations above, these reviews cover sales of circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube by Hylsa.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified

information provided by the respondent using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's

facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,

and selection of original documentation containing relevant

information. Our verification results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Use of Best Information Available (92/93 POR)

Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that, in making a final

determination in an administrative review, if the Department ``is

unable to verify the accuracy of the information submitted, it shall

use the best information available to it as the basis for its action. *

* *'' In addition, section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to

use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to

produce information requested in a timely manner or in the form

required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation. * * *''

In deciding what to use as BIA, section 353.37(b) of our

regulations provides that we may take into account whether a party

refuses to provide information. For purposes of these reviews, and in

accordance with our practice, we have used the more adverse BIA--

generally the highest rate for any company for the same class or kind

of merchandise from the same country from this or any prior segment of

the proceeding, including the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation--whenever a company refused to cooperate with the

Department or otherwise significantly impeded the proceeding. When a

company substantially cooperated with our requests for information, but

we were unable to verify information it provided or it failed to

provide all information requested in a timely manner or in the form

requested, we used as BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate (including

the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm for the same class

or kind of merchandise from the same country from either the LTFV

investigation or a prior administrative review; or (2) the highest

calculated rate in this review for any firm for the same class or kind

of merchandise from the same country.

We preliminarily determine that the use of best information

available (BIA), in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, is

appropriate for Hylsa for the 92/93 POR. We have assigned a cooperative

(second-tier) BIA rate to the company for these preliminary results,

which is the rate assigned to Hylsa during the original investigation.

When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for

information but we are unable to verify the information it provided or

the company fails to provide complete or accurate information, we

assign that company second-tier BIA. (See Allied Signal v. United

States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cia. 1993) (concluding that the

Department's two-tiered BIA methodology, under which cooperating

companies are assigned the lower, ``second tier'' BIA rate, is

reasonable).)

Hylsa cooperated with our requests for information and agreed to

verification. However, the multiple and pervasive nature of errors and

omissions in the information provided by Hylsa prevented the Department

from relying on Hylsa's response for these preliminary results. For

example, despite our attempts, we were unable to verify either Hylsa's

total quantity and value of home-market sales or its value of U.S.

sales of subject merchandise. In addition, we found a significant

discrepancy between reported and actual third-country sales of subject

merchandise. (See verification report.)

Establishing the completeness of the response with respect to the

quantity and value of sales in both the home and U.S. markets is a very

significant element of verification. However, as a result of

verification, Hylsa subsequently acknowledged that it had failed to

report approximately 10% of its sales of subject merchandise in the

home market for the period of review. Moreover, Hylsa did not retain

the complete database used to develop its response to the Department.

As a result, we were unable to reconcile the quantity and value figures

for the home market reported to the Department with the company's

audited financial statements. In addition, Hylsa failed to prepare a

detailed analysis of home market sales in a pre-selected month of the

POR as requested in our verification outline. Finally, Hylsa was unable

to

[[Page 34192]]

explain the discrepancy in U.S. sales value. (See verification report.)

The completeness of both the home market and U.S. sales databases

is essential because both are used to calculate the dumping duties. As

the Department stated in Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke

in Part, 62 FR 1954 (January 14, 1996), it is the obligation of

respondents to provide an accurate and complete response prior to

verification so that the Department may have the opportunity to analyze

fully the information and other parties are able to review and comment

on it. Verification is intended to establish the accuracy and

completeness of a response rather than to supplement and reconstruct

the information to fit the requirements of the Department.

``Establishing the completeness of the response with respect to the

sales of the subject merchandise in the United States is a very

significant element of the verification.'' Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,

Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66742 (December 17, 1996). ``The

completeness of the U.S. sales database is essential because it is used

to calculate the dumping duties.'' Id. It is our practice at

verification to examine a selected portion of both databases, rather

than the entire database, to test the accuracy and completeness of

information that the company provided. The CIT has upheld this

practice. See Bomont Industries v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 1507,

1508 (CIT 1990) (``verification is like an audit, the purpose of which

is to test information provided by a party for accuracy and

completeness. Normally an audit entails selective examination rather

than testing of an entire universe.''); See also Monsanto Co. v. United

States, 698 F.Supp. 275, 281 (CIT 1988) (``verification is a spot check

and is not intended to be an exhaustive examination of the respondent's

business''). Where the Department finds discrepancies in the portion

which it examines, it must judge the effect on the unexamined portion

of the response. In the instant case, the loss of a database used to

prepare the original response to the Department prevented Hylsa from

reconciling aggregate total figures reported to the Department with the

company's financial statements. While the company was generally able to

tie monthly financial statements to a monthly sales statistics

database, it had no explanation as to the remaining discrepancies

between this database and the information submitted to the Department.

In addition, the company's admission that it had failed to report

approximately 10 percent of home market sales of subject merchandise

further throws the reported quantity and value figures into doubt.

Since the Department was unable to reconcile aggregate totals, we

requested (as we did in the verification outline) that Hylsa prepare a

worksheet tying the pre-selected month to the response submitted to the

Department. The pre-selected month corresponded to the month when most

of the U.S. sales occurred and most likely would have been used in the

calculation of the dumping duties. The company stated that it could not

prepare the requested worksheet without the missing database for that

month. Department officials then requested a listing of sales from a

different month in an attempt to tie it to the sales statistics

database. When a Department official selected a particular sale and

requested supporting documentation, the company was unable to produce

it at that time. Late on the last day, Hylsa indicated that it could

provide the supporting documentation. By that time, however, there was

insufficient time for Department officials to verify and establish the

accuracy of the documents. (See verification report.)

We believe that the use of total BIA is warranted. The inability of

Hylsa to reconcile aggregate quantities and values to its financial

statements throws into doubt the accuracy of Hylsa's reported

transaction-specific sales. Since such sales are used to calculate FMV

on a monthly basis, the addition or omission of home-market sales can

have a large impact on the final margin. If there are a small number of

sales to the U.S. in relation to the home-market, or sales are bunched

in particular months, or certain products are only sold in a limited

number of months, or other conditions exist, the potential for

distortion or manipulation by omitting or creating home-market sales is

particularly great. We must be certain that all sales are reported

accurately and completely to address this concern, and reconciling

quantity and value is one of the most fundamental ways of ensuring

accuracy and completeness. Without that certainty, we do not believe

that it is possible to calculate an accurate margin for this POR.

As explained above, the multiple and pervasive nature of errors and

omissions in the information provided by Hylsa prevented the

Department's reliance on its submissions for these preliminary results.

See, e.g. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. United States, 910 F.Supp. 679 (CIT

1995) (upholding the Department's use of second-tier BIA where the

Department found that respondent's errors and omissions were multiple

and pervasive); National Steel Corp. v. United States, 870 F.Supp. 1130

(CIT 1994) (approving the Department's use of BIA where respondent

omitted significant information from submissions); Tatung Co. v. United

States, 18 C.I.T. 1137 (1994) (upholding the Department's use of BIA

due to omissions and errors in respondent's submission). Therefore, in

accordance with section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, the inability to

verify aggregate quantity and value figures was the determining factor

in our decision to apply BIA to the company's response for the 92/93

POR. See decision memorandum, February 28, 1997.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, for the 93/94 POR,

we considered each circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

product produced by Hylsa, covered by the descriptions in the ``Scope

of the Review'' section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home

market during the POR, to be such or similar merchandise for purposes

of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube. For each of the products

produced by Hylsa within the scope of the A-201-805 order, we examined

the categories of merchandise listed in Section 771 (16) of the Act for

purposes of model matching. Where there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis

of the characteristics listed in Appendix VI of the Department's April

24, 1996 antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons,

we matched each foreign like product based on the physical

characteristics reported by the respondent and verified by the

Department. Where sales were made in the home market on a different

weight basis from the U.S. market (e.g. theoretical versus actual

weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using

the conversion factors supplied by Hylsa, before making our fair-value

comparisons. We compared individual U.S. transactions to monthly

weighted average FMVs.

[[Page 34193]]

Date of Sale

For the 93/94 POR, depending on the channel of trade and on the

date after which the key terms of sale could not be changed, we treated

one of the following dates as the date of the sale: The date of the

invoice or the date of shipment.

United States Price

All of Hylsa's U.S. sales in the 93/94 POR were based on the price

to the first unrelated purchaser in the United States. The Department

determined that purchase price, as defined in section 772 of the Tariff

Act, was the appropriate basis for calculating USP. We made adjustments

to purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight,

foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, insurance, U.S.

inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties.

Foreign Market Value

Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third

country sales, we determined that the home market was viable.

Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we based

FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in the home

market. Based on our verification of home-market sales responses, we

are disallowing an adjustment for a steel supplier rebate. We have

previously outlined our reasons for rejecting this adjustment. See

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 57 FR 42953 (September

17, 1992) (``this rebate program does not qualify for a circumstance of

sale adjustment because it reflects a difference in production costs,

rather than a difference in selling expenses. Adjustments for

circumstance of sale are, by definition, limited to consideration of a

seller's marketing practices and expenses, and are unaffected by

conditions affecting production''); See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 68708 (December 30, 1996).

We made adjustments to FMV for differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to

section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

Petitioners alleged, on July 23, 1996 with respect to the 93/94

POR, that Hylsa sold circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes in

the home market at prices below COP. Based on this allegation, in

accordance with Section 773(b) of the Act, the Department determined,

on September 30, 1996, that it had reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect that Hylsa had sold the subject merchandise in the home market

at prices below its COP. See Letter to Shearman and Sterling and

Decision Memorandum (September 30, 1996). We therefore initiated a cost

investigation with regard to Hylsa for the 93/94 POR in order to

determine whether the respondent made home-market sales during the 93/

94 POR at prices below its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP for Hylsa as

the sum of reported materials, labor, factory overhead, and general

expenses. We compared COP to home market prices, net of price

adjustments, discounts, and movement expenses.

In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in determining

whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we

examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an

extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices

which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of

time in the normal course of trade.

In accordance with our normal practice, for each model for which

less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the

POR were made at prices below COP, we included all sales of that model

in the computation of FMV. For each model for which 10 percent or more,

but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales during the POR were

priced below COP, we excluded those sales priced below COP, provided

that they were made over an extended period of time. For each model for

which 90 percent or more of the home market sales during the POR were

priced below COP and were made over an extended period of time, we

disregarded all sales of that model in our calculation and, in

accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the

constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, e.g.,

Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan, Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).

In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine

whether sales below cost had been made over an extended period of time,

we compared the number of months in which sales below cost occurred for

a particular model to the number of months in which that model was

sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months, we did not

disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that

model in each month. If a model was sold in three or more months, we

did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below cost

in at least three of the months. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December 8, 1993).

Because Hylsa provided no indication that its below-cost sales of

models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the ``between 10 and

90 percent'' categories were at prices that would permit recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal course

of trade, we disregarded those sales of models within the ``10 to 90

percent'' category which were made below cost over an extended period

of time. In addition, as a result of our COP test for home market sales

of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' category, we based FMV

on CV for all U.S. sales for which more than 90 percent of sales of the

comparison home market model occurred below COP. Finally, where we

found, for certain of Hylsa's models, home market sales for which less

than 10 percent were made below COP, we used all home market sales of

these models in our comparisons.

We also used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there was no

sale of such or similar merchandise in the home market. We calculated

CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost

of materials, labor, and factory overhead in our calculations. Where

the general expenses were less than the statutory minimum of 10 percent

of the cost of manufacture (COM), we calculated general expenses as 10

percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were less than the

statutory minimum of 8 percent of the COM plus general expenses, we

calculated profit as 8 percent of the sum of COM plus general expenses.

Based on our verification of Hylsa's cost response, we adjusted Hylsa's

reported COP and CV as described below.

Contrary to specific written instructions from the Department, we

found that Hylsa failed to report weighted-average costs by product for

the entire POR. Instead, Hylsa reported six months of costs by product

which were not weight-averaged. As best information available, we made

the following changes. Since respondent did not provide twelve months

of

[[Page 34194]]

weighted-average cost data, we used as best information available the

highest monthly cost by product as the actual cost for the POR. We

segregated home-market sales by finish into galvanized and non-

galvanized products. As best information available, we took the highest

product cost in each of these two groups and applied it to all products

within the specific groups.

In accordance with section 773 of the Act, for those U.S. models

for which we were able to find a home market such or similar match that

had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on the packed,

F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in the

home market. We made adjustments, where applicable, for post-sale

inland freight and for home market direct expenses. We also adjusted

FMV for differences in circumstances of sale based on direct selling

expenses.

Reimbursement

Petitioners requested that the Department examine the issue of

reimbursement where the producer/exporter is the importer of record.

Section 353.26 of the Department's regulations states that ``[i]n

calculating the United States price, the Secretary will deduct the

amount of any antidumping duty which the producer or reseller: (i)

[P]aid directly on behalf of the importer; or (ii) [r]eimbursed to the

importer.'' 19 CFR 353.26(a)(1). The Department's interpretation of the

regulation is that it anticipates that separate corporate entities must

exist as producer/reseller and importer in order to invoke the

regulation. In the present case, the U.S. importer of record, Hylsa, is

also the same corporate entity that produces and exports the subject

merchandise. In such a case, there is no separate company or separate

U.S. subsidiary, wholly owned or otherwise, that acts as the importer

of record. Rather, the importer and exporter are one and the same

corporate entity. In this case, there can be no payment made to, or on

behalf of, the importer within the meaning of the regulation.

Accordingly, the Department interprets its reimbursement regulation as

inapplicable in this case.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily

determine that the following margin exists:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipes and Tubes

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

Weighted--average

Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin (percent)

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

Hylsa 92/93.......................................... 32.62

Hylsa 93/94.......................................... 27.66

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

Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date

of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days

of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after

the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case

briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted

no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs

and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those

comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final

results of these administrative reviews including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages

stated above.

Furthermore, the following 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 the

final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate

established in the final results of the 93/94 review; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the

cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, or the original LTFV 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

review, the cash deposit rate will be 32.62 percent. This is the ``all

others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

From Mexico, 57 FR 42953 (September 17, 1992).

This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 Department's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: June 15, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-16244 Filed 6-24-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P