SUMMARY

In accordance with the U.S. Court of International Trade's (CIT's) order in Slip Op. 00-50 (May 3, 2000), Consol. Court No. 98-05-02185, the Department of Commerce (the Department), has prepared these final results of redetermination on remand with respect to the final results of the 1996 countervailing duty administrative review of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube products from Turkey. Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube and Welded Carbon Steel Line Pipe from Turkey: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 18885 (April 16, 1998) (Pipe and Tube). The CIT had previously instructed the Department to either include foreign exchange gains in the denominator of the subsidy margin calculation or provide an adequate explanation of how this case differs from prior determinations, where the subsidy margin calculation was performed in this manner. The CIT also stated that if the Department took the latter course of action, it must also explain why Turkish generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and respondents' accounting methods are unreliable and distortive. See Slip Op. 99-141 (CIT December 23, 1999). Therefore, in accordance with that remand order, the Department submitted its Final Results of Redetermination on Remand (Remand Results) on March 17, 2000, explaining how the prior determinations cited by the court reflected a practice no longer ascribed to by the Department, and why Turkish GAAP and the respondents' accounting methods are irrelevant in regards to the issue at hand.

However, in its May 3, 2000 decision, the CIT found that the Department's explanation failed to substantiate its practice or its reasonableness, and remanded to the Department to recalculate the subsidy rates using a sales denominator inclusive of exchange rate gains and losses. Pursuant to the Court's second remand instructions, the Department has recalculated the benefits under each program, and the company-specific total ad valorem rates.

REMAND RESULTS

Per the instructions of the Court, we have recalculated the company-specific program rates for the 1996 period. The rates set forth in the table are the original and recalculated total ad valorem rates for each producer subject to the review.

On May 26, 2000, the Department issued draft remand results for comment. Petitioners did not submit comments, while the respondents stated that they concurred with our remand results.

Troy H. Cribb
Acting Assistant Secretary
  for Import Administration