Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Final Results and Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
On May 6, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results and preliminary partial recision of antidumping administrative review on oil country tubular goods, other than drill pipe, from Argentina. The review covers two manufacturer/exporters, Siderca S.A.I.C. (Siderca) and Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (Acindar). The period of review is August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received no comments. Furthermore, the Department made no changes in its analysis following publication of the preliminary results. Therefore, the final results of review are unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results of review.
July 2, 2003.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fred Baker or Robert James, 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 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
On May 6, 2003, the Department published its preliminary results and Start Printed Page 39517preliminary partial recision of antidumping duty administrative review of oil country tubular goods, other than drill pipe, from Argentina. See Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, from Argentina, 68 FR 23964 (May 6, 2003). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment. No party submitted comments. We have now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
Period of Review
The period of review (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 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.
On September 25, 2002, we initiated an administrative review of sales made by Siderca and Acindar. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 67 FR 60210 (September 25, 2002). However, as noted in the preliminary results, Siderca notified us that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We conducted an on-site verification of this information at Siderca's facilities in February 2003, and uncovered no evidence that Siderca had shipments to the United States during the POR. See the Department's March 4, 2003, verification report on file in room B-099 of the Herbert C. Hoover Department of Commerce building. Furthermore, we received no comments concerning Siderca for the final results. Therefore, we are rescinding the review with respect to Siderca. Siderca's cash deposit rate will remain at 1.36 percent, which is the rate established for Siderca in the less-than-fair-value investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, 60 FR 33539 (June 28, 1995) and Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, 60 FR 41055 (August 11, 1995).
Use of Facts Available
We find, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 776(b), that the application of adverse facts available is warranted since Acindar did not respond to our questionnaire, and therefore has not cooperated to the best of its ability. 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 because 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. 103-316 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 Start Printed Page 39518adverse 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 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 margin from the 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). Therefore, we determine that the 60.73 percent rate has probative value for use as adverse facts available.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our determination that it is appropriate to apply adverse facts available to Acindar, we determine that a the weighted-average dumping margin of 60.73 percent exists for Acindar for the period August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002.
The Department will determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting assessment rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each entry 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 the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff 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 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 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).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing 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 or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties or countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 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.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Tariff Act.Start Signature
Dated June 25, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-16665 Filed 7-1-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S