[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 167 (Monday, August 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44825-44828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20978]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a
semiannual new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (Pipes and Tubes) from Thailand in
response to a request from Pacific Pipe Public Company, Limited
(Pacific Pipe). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2008 through
September 30, 2008. The domestic interested parties for this proceeding
are Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation and Wheatland Tube Company
(petitioners).
We preliminarily determine that the U.S. sale of subject
merchandise made by Pacific Pipe is below normal value (NV). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties
based on the difference between the export price (EP) and the NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
See the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice. The
final results will be issued 90 days after the date of issuance of
these preliminary results, unless extended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, Office
6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2371.
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on Pipes and
Tubes from Thailand on March 11, 1986. See Notice of Antidumping Duty
Order: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51
FR 8341 (March 11, 1986) (Antidumping Duty Order). On September 30,
2008, the Department received a timely request from Pacific Pipe, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), to conduct a semiannual new shipper
review of the antidumping duty order on Pipes and Tubes from Thailand.
The Department found the request for review met all of the requirements
set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated the review on October 28,
2008. See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand:
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 73 FR 65290
(November 3, 2008) (NSR Initiation).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), we extended the POR of
this new shipper review through September 30, 2008 to include
Pacific Pipe's entry. (See NSR Initiation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 7, 2008, the Department issued the initial
questionnaire to Pacific Pipe.\2\ On December 9, 2008, the Department
received Pacific Pipe's section A response, the public version of which
was revised due to bracketing deficiencies and resubmitted on December
15, 2008. On December 15, 2008, the Department also preliminarily
granted Pacific Pipe's request to limit its reporting of home market
sales data to the specific grades sold in the United States. See Letter
to Pacific Pipe from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration, dated December 15, 2008. On January 6,
2009, the Department received Pacific Pipe's sections B and C
questionnaire response. On March 10 and July 24, 2009, the Department
issued supplemental questionnaires, and Pacific Pipe responded to the
questionnaires on April 14 and August 3, 2009, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in
non-market economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of
U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production
of the foreign like product and the constructed value of the
merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 2009, petitioners urged the Department to rescind the new
shipper review in favor of examining Pacific Pipe's sale in the
concurrent administrative review, because the entry occurred outside
the normal six-month new shipper review period (March 1, 2008 through
August 31, 2008). Petitioners also questioned the bona fide nature of
Pacific Pipe's sale. We note that at the time of initiation, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2)(ii), the Department extended the
POR through September 30, 2008, to cover Pacific Pipe's entry. We have
also analyzed all aspects of Pacific Pipe's U.S. sale and preliminarily
found it to be bona fide. See ``Bona Fides Analysis of U.S. Sale''
section below.
On March 27, 2009, the Department published a notice extending the
deadline for the preliminary results to August 24, 2009. See Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review,
74 FR 13414 (March 27, 2009).
Verification
The Department intends to conduct a sales verification of Pacific
Pipe's responses following the preliminary results of this review.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this antidumping order are certain welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has
an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not exceeding 16
inches.
[[Page 44826]]
These products, which are commonly referred to in the industry as
``standard pipe'' or ``structural tubing,'' are hereinafter designated
as ``pipes and tubes.'' The merchandise is classifiable under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,
7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and purposes of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), our written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Bona Fides Analysis of U.S. Sale
On January 22, 2009, the petitioners submitted comments calling
into question the bona fide nature of Pacific Pipe's U.S. sale. Pacific
Pipe responded to the comments on January 29, 2009. We have analyzed
the information on the record, and preliminarily determine that Pacific
Pipe's U.S. sale is a bona fide transaction. Our analysis of Pacific
Pipe's sale and of the parties' comments on the bona fides of Pacific
Pipe's U.S. sale are detailed in the Memorandum to Dana Mermelstein,
Program Manager, from Myrna Lobo, Case Analyst, regarding Bona Fide
Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Pacific
Pipe Public Company, Limited, dated concurrently with this notice (Bona
Fides Memorandum) and on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 of
the main Department of Commerce building (CRU). Therefore, we are
preliminarily treating Pacific Pipe's sale to the United States as an
appropriate transaction for review. See Am. Silicon Techs. V. United
States, 110 F. Supp.2d 992,995 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000)
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Pacific Pipe's sale of subject merchandise
from Thailand was made in the United States at less than NV, we
compared the EP to the NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and
``Normal Value'' section of this notice in accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
Product Comparisons
Pursuant to section 771(16)(A) of the Act, for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to the U.S. sales, the
Department considers all products sold in the comparison market as
described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, above,
that were in the ordinary course of trade. In accordance with sections
771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there are no sales of identical
merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of
trade, we compare U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like
product based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our
antidumping questionnaire: grade, nominal pipe size, wall thickness,
schedule of pipe, surface finish and end finish. We found that Pacific
Pipe had sales of foreign like product that were identical in these
respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, and therefore
compared U.S. products with the identical merchandise sold in the
comparison market based on the characteristics listed above, in that
order of priority.
Date of Sale
Regarding date of sale, 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the
Department will normally use the date of invoice as the date of sale,
unless a different date better reflects the date on which the material
terms of sale are established. Pacific Pipe reported invoice date as
the date of sale for its home market sales and the proforma invoice
date as the date of sale for its U.S. sale. We have analyzed the data
on the record and preliminarily determine that the dates reported are
the appropriate dates of sale for the U.S. and comparison market sales
under review.
U.S. Price
We used EP methodology for Pacific Pipe's U.S. sale, in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was
sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
prior to importation, and constructed export price methodology was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. In accordance with
sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we calculated EP using the price
Pacific Pipe charged for packed subject merchandise shipped on a free
on board (FOB) basis. We made deductions for movement expenses and
brokerage expenses incurred in Thailand, including charges for service
fees, document verification expenses, port passing charges, Customs
formality expenses, Customs clearance charges, terminal handling
charges and inland insurance.
In addition, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we
made an upward adjustment to export price for duty drawback Pacific
Pipe received. See Analysis Memorandum for Pacific Pipe Public Company,
Limited (Preliminary Analysis Memo) dated concurrently with this
notice.
Normal Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was first sold
for consumption in the comparison market, in the usual commercial
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent
practicable, at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP sale. See
``Level of Trade'' section below. After testing comparison market
viability, we calculated NV for Pacific Pipe as discussed below.
Home Market Viability
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the volume of Pacific Pipe's home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Based on this
comparison, we determined that Pacific Pipe's home market was viable
during the POR.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in
the comparison market or, when NV is based on constructed value, that
of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, G&A expenses, and
profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price
sale, which is usually from the exporter to the unaffiliated U.S.
customer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales,
we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along
the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the
difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In the home market, Pacific Pipe reported it sells to several
customer categories through two channels of distribution: ex-factory,
and direct shipments from Pacific Pipe to the
[[Page 44827]]
customer. Further, Pacific Pipe reported that the selling functions in
the home market do not differ between customer categories or channels
of distribution. See Pacific Pipe's supplemental response dated April
14, 2009 at page 8.
After analyzing the information on the record with respect to these
selling functions, we find that in the home market there were not
sufficient differences in the selling functions performed for the
different channels of trade to conclude that there is more than one
level of trade in the home market. We therefore find a single level of
trade exists for all of Pacific Pipe's sales to the home market. Since
there is only one LOT in the home market we find there is no basis for
an LOT adjustment. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
Calculation of Normal Value
We based NV on the starting prices of Pacific Pipe's sales to the
home market adjusting for billing adjustments where applicable,
pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, we made deductions for discounts and
movement expenses (i.e., inland freight and warehousing expenses) where
appropriate. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the
Act, we deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.410(c), we deducted comparison market direct selling expenses
(i.e., credit expenses) and added U.S. direct selling expenses. We made
the appropriate adjustment for commissions paid in the home market
pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c). We made
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling
expenses incurred on comparison market or U.S. sales where commissions
were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, i.e., the
``commission offset.'' Specifically, where commissions are incurred in
one market, but not in the other, we limit the amount of such allowance
to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market
or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. See
Preliminary Analysis Memo.
Currency Conversion
In accordance with sections 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
See also 19 CFR 351.415.
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) that the following percentage margin exists
for Pacific Pipe for the period March 1, 2008, through September 30,
2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Pipe Public Co., Ltd................................ 4.79
[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash 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 new shipper review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for subject
merchandise manufactured and exported by Pacific Pipe will be the rate
established in the final results of this new shipper review, except no
cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average margin is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) if the exporter is not a
firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or
the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 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 previous 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) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers
and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall be 15.67 percent, the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of the new shipper review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions for Pacific Pipe directly to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of the final results of this new
shipper review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate an importer-
specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and the total
entered value of the examined sales. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results
of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
the final results of this review.
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Unless
notified by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested
parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date
of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after
the deadline for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement of the issue; 2)
a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of authorities.
Additionally, parties are requested to provide their case briefs and
rebuttal briefs in electronic format (e.g., WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, Adobe Acrobat, etc.).
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the
party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of
participants; and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the case and rebuttal briefs.
The Department will issue the final results of this review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written
briefs, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results,
unless the final results are extended. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).
[[Page 44828]]
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
This new shipper review is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR
351.214(i).
Dated: August 24, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-20978 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S