[Federal Register: May 6, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 23964-23966]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06my03-42]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-357-810]
Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Recision of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods,
Other Than Drill Pipe, from Argentina
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Recision
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the petitioner, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from Argentina.
This review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject
merchandise, Siderca S.A.I.C. (Siderca) and Acindar Industria Argentina
de Aceros S.A. (Acindar). As a result of our review, we have
preliminarily determined that Siderca had no shipments during the
period of review (POR). Acindar failed to respond to our questionnaire.
As a result, we are basing our preliminary results for Acindar on
adverse facts available. If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) to assess antidumping
duties on entries during the POR. The POR is August 1, 2002, through
July 31, 2003.
We invite interested parties 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 DATE: May 6, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Enforcement Group III Office 8, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482
2924 (Baker), (202) 482-0649 (James).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 11, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. See Antidumping Duty
Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, 60 FR 41055 (August
11, 1995). On August 30, 2002, United States Steel Corporation
(petitioner) requested that the Department conduct an administrative
review of sales of the subject merchandise made by Siderca and Acindar.
On September 20, 2002, the Department initiated the administrative
review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 60210
(September 25, 2002).
On September 25, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping duty
questionnaire to Acindar and Siderca. In response to the Department's
September 25, 2002, questionnaire, Siderca stated in a October 23,
2002, submission that it had no consumption entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. Between February 20 and February 22, 2003,
the Department verified Siderca's ``no-shipment'' claim. See the
``Verification'' section below.
The margin for Acindar indicated below under ``Preliminary Results
of Review'' is based on adverse facts available, as discussed below.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified
Siderca's claim of no shipments to the United States using standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the public
and proprietary versions of the verification report, dated March 4,
2003, which are on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department.
Period of Review
The POR is August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.
Scope of the Review
Oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are hollow steel products of
circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing of iron
(other than cast iron) or
[[Page 23965]]
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 or tubing pipe containing 10.5
percent or more of chromium. Drill pipe was excluded from this order
beginning August 11, 2001. See Continuation of Countervailing and
Antidumping Duty Orders on Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina,
Italy, Japan, Korea and Mexico, and Partial Revocation of Those Orders
From Argentina and Mexico With Respect to Drill Pipe, 66 FR 38630 (July
25, 2001).
The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40,
7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10,
7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50,
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20,
7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60,
7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30,
7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80,
7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60,
7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45,
7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90,
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10,
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. Our written description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Use of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that ``if an
interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has
been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and
the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this
title.''
On September 25, 2002 the Department issued its standard
antidumping questionnaire to Acindar. Acindar made no written response
to the questionnaire. Therefore, we determine that the use of facts
available is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the
Tariff Act because Acindar withheld information requested by the
Department by not responding to the Department's questionnaire, thereby
significantly impeding this proceeding. See Memorandum from Fred Baker
to the File dated April 1, 2003. Thus, the curative provisions of
section 782 of the Tariff Act are not applicable since Acindar did not
provide any response.
Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that, if the Department
finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,''
the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of
the party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R.
Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``an
affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.''
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296,
27340 (May 19, 1997), (Final Rule).
The Department finds that in not responding to the September 25,
2002, questionnaire, Acindar failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. The
Department requires that respondents provide answers to the
questionnaire because the Department uses the information to determine
accurate dumping margins for the company. Since the information is
within the sole control of Acindar, when the company fails to provide
such information we cannot otherwise obtain the information necessary
to calculate a dumping margin. Further, at no time did Acindar indicate
during the POR that it was having difficulty in complying with the
Department's request for information. Consequently, Acindar should not
be allowed to benefit by its non-cooperation. Therefore, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, we may, in making our determination,
use an adverse inference in selecting from the facts otherwise
available. This adverse inference may include reliance on data derived
from the petition, a previous determination in an investigation or
review, or any other information placed on the record. For this review
we have determined to assign 60.73 percent as the facts available rate
to Acindar. This rate represents the highest rate for any respondent in
any prior segment of this proceeding. See Oil Country Tubular Goods:
Final Results and Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 67 FR 13262 (March 19, 2003).
Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes
secondary information, and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides
that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate
secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR
351.308(d).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as adverse facts available a
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is
not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g.,
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the
Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available
because the margin was based on another company's
[[Page 23966]]
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin)).
As discussed above, it is not necessary to question the reliability
of a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding. Further,
there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate
as facts available. In fact, this margin is Acindar's own from the
just-completed 2000-2001 administrative review of OCTG. See Notice of
Final Results and Recision in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, From
Argentina, 67 FR 13262 (March 19, 2003) (Final Results). Therefore, we
preliminarily find that the 60.73 percent rate has probative value for
use as adverse facts available.
Preliminary Partial Recision
On October 23, 2002, Siderca informed the Department that it did
not ship OCTG to the United States during the POR, and requested
recision of its administrative review. Information on the record
indicates that there were no entries of this merchandise from Siderca
during the POR. See the Department's verification report dated March 4,
2003, and the Final Results and the accompanying Decision Memorandum at
Comment 7. Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with
respect to Siderca.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a
weighted-average dumping margin of 60.73 percent exists for Acindar for
the period August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002. Furthermore, we
preliminarily determine to rescind this administrative review with
respect to Siderca.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these
preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may
be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested
to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief
summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. An interested
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the
Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department will
issue the final results of this administrative review, including the
results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written
comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will
determine, and the BCBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to the BCBP within 15 days of publication of the
final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in
the final results of review, we will direct the BCBP to apply the
assessment rate against the entered customs values for the subject
merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review 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 by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed
company will be the rate established in the final results of this
administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the
rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this
review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-
specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be that 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, any
previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will
be 1.36 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods
from Argentina, 60 FR 41055 (August 11, 1995).
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: April 30, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-11175 Filed 5-5-03; 8:45 am]