Skip to Content


Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


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


Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review.


On September 8, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Korea (64 FR 48783). This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”), and the period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998, which is the third period of review (“POR”).

Based on our analysis of the comments received and our discussion of the currency conversion methodology explained below, we have made a change in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”


March 13, 2000.

Start Further Info


Jonathan Lyons, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0374.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


The 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 (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations Start Printed Page 13365to the Department's regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).


On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register (60 FR 41058) the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from Korea. On September 8, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of this antidumping order (64 FR 48783) for the period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998. We invited interested parties to comment and received two comments and rebuttals regarding SeAH. At the request of certain interested parties, we held a public hearing on October 19, 1999. The Department has now completed this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory time limit. On December 14, 1999, the Department published a notice of extension of the time limit for the final results in the review to March 6, 2000. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, 64 FR 69723.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this order are oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, 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 or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products 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 item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of this review.

Period of Review

The period of review is August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memorandum) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated March 6, 2000, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at​import_​admin/​records/​frn/​. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act. Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. The Department considers a “fluctuation” to exist when the daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent or more. The benchmark is defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we generally substitute the benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice. (An exception to this rule is described below.) (For an explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996)).

Our analysis of the U.S. dollar/Korean won exchange rates demonstrates that the Korean won declined rapidly in November and December 1997. Specifically, the won declined more than 40 percent over this two-month period. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many times more severe than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate during recent years, and it did not rebound significantly in a short time. As such, we determine that the decline in the won during November and December 1997 was of such magnitude that the dollar-won exchange rate cannot reasonably be viewed as having simply fluctuated at that time, i.e., as having experienced only a momentary drop in value relative to the normal benchmark. Accordingly, the Department used actual daily exchange rates exclusively in November and December 1997. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30664, 30670 (June 8, 1999) (“Stainless Steel from Korea”).

We note, however, that we have refined our methodology somewhat from that applied in both Stainless Steel from Korea and our preliminary results of the instant review. We recognize that, following a large and precipitous decline in the value of a currency, a period may exist wherein it is unclear whether further declines are a continuation of the large and precipitous decline or merely fluctuations. Under the circumstances of this case, such uncertainty may have existed following the large, precipitous drop in November and December 1997. Thus, we devised a methodology for identifying the point following a precipitous drop at which it is reasonable to presume that rates differing more than 2.25 percent from the benchmark were merely fluctuating. Following the precipitous drop in November and December 1997, we continued to use only actual daily rates until the daily rates were not more than 2.25 percent below the average of the 20 previous daily rates for five consecutive days. At that point, we determined that the pattern of daily rates no longer reasonably precluded the possibility that they were merely “fluctuating.” Using a 20-day average for this purpose Start Printed Page 13366provides a reasonable indication that it is no longer necessary to refrain from using the normal methodology, while avoiding the use of daily rates exclusively for an excessive period of time.

Accordingly, from the first of these five days, we resumed classifying daily rates as “fluctuating” or “normal” in accordance with our standard practice, except that we began with a 20-day benchmark and on each succeeding day added one daily rate to the average until the normal 40-day average was restored as the benchmark. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 64 FR 56759, 56763 (October 21, 1999). See also Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip From Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part, 64 FR 62648, 62649 (November 17, 1999). Applying this methodology in the instant case, we used daily rates from November 3, 1997, through January 13, 1998. We then resumed the use of our normal methodology, starting with a benchmark based on the average of the 20 reported daily rates from January 14, 1998. We used the normal 40-day benchmark from February 12, 1998 to the close of the review period.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made a change in the margin calculations to account for the refined exchange rate methodology discussed above. We made no additional changes to the calculations. Any alleged programming or clerical errors with which we do not agree are discussed in the relevant sections of the “Decision Memorandum.”

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998:

Margin (percent)
SeAH Steel Company15.02

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. With respect to both export price and constructed export price sales, we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting margins against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the relevant order during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of oil country tubular goods from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate shown above; (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, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (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) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 12.17 percent. This rate is the “All Others” rate from the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements 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 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 doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

Start Signature

Dated: March 6, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

End Signature

Appendix 1—Issues in Decision Memo

Comments and Responses

1. Date of Sale for Third-Country Sales

2. Normal Value Currency Conversions for Third-Country Sales

End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 00-6087 Filed 3-10-00; 8:45 am]