[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69626-69628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28685]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-502]
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 14, 2010, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from
India. The period of review is May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. We
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary
results. The review covers nine manufacturer/exporters. Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes for the
final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the
respondents are listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review''
section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0198 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
Background
On June 14, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes
and tubes from India. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes
and Tubes from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 33578 (June 14, 2010) (Preliminary
Results). The administrative review covers Jindal Pipes Limited, Lloyds
Metals & Engineers Limited and Lloyds Line Pipe Ltd. (LMEL/LLPL),\1\
Lloyds Steel Industries Limited (LSIL), Maharashtra Seamless Limited,
Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., Universal Tube
and Plastic Ind., Ushdev International Ltd., and Uttam Galva Steels
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See memorandum entitled ``Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Standard Pipes and Tubes From India--Affiliation and Whether to
Collapse Two Separate Entities'' dated June 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since publishing the Preliminary Results, we extended the due date
for completion of these final results from October 12, 2010, to
November 5, 2010. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and
Tubes from India: Extension of the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 63439 (October 15, 2010).
We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results. We received timely submitted case briefs from LMEL/LLPL and
LSIL. We also received a timely submitted case brief from Shamrock
Building Materials, Inc., an importer of subject merchandise.
Additionally, we received a timely submitted rebuttal case brief from a
domestic interested party, Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation. No
parties requested a hearing.
[[Page 69627]]
We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order include certain welded carbon
steel standard pipes and tubes with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch
or more but not over 16 inches. These products are commonly referred to
in the industry as standard pipes and tubes produced to various
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) specifications, most
notably A-53, A-120, or A-135.
The antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard
pipes and tubes from India, published on May 12, 1986, included
standard scope language which used the import classification system as
defined by Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated (TSUSA).
The United States developed a system of tariff classification based on
the international harmonized system of customs nomenclature. On January
1, 1989, the U.S. tariff schedules were fully converted from the TSUSA
to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). See, e.g., Certain Welded
Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India; Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 FR 26650, 26651 (June
10, 1991). As a result of this transition, the scope language we used
in the 1991 Federal Register notice is slightly different from the
scope language of the original final determination and antidumping duty
order.
Until January 1, 1989, such merchandise was classifiable under item
numbers 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252,
610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, and 610.4925 of the TSUSA. This
merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,
7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090. As with the TSUSA numbers, the HTS numbers
are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product
description remains dispositive.
Duty Absorption
As stated in the Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33580, the
Department has not conducted a duty-absorption inquiry as requested in
this segment of the proceeding because the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit held that the Department lacks the authority to conduct
such inquiries for reviews of transition orders. See FAG Italia S.p.A.
v. United States, 291 F.3d 806, 819 (CAFC 2002). The order on certain
welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India is a transition
order, having gone into effect in 1986.
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 for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India for the Period
of Review May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009'' (Decision Memorandum)
from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Edward C. Yang,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated
November 5, 2010, and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is in
the Decision Memorandum and attached to this notice as an Appendix. The
Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the
Department's Central Records Unit of the main Commerce building, Room
7046, and is accessible on the Internet at http://trade.gov/ia. The
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the analysis of comments received, we have made certain
changes since the Preliminary Results. Specifically, with respect to
sales by LMEL/LLPL to trading companies, for export price we used the
whole gross price as reported by LMEL/LLPL. For these sales to trading
companies, we did not deduct the trading-company discount from the
gross unit price as we did in the Preliminary Results because the
trading-company discount represents the difference in price between the
value paid for the goods by the trading company and the value that the
trading company invoiced the final U.S. customer under LMEL/LLPL's
direction. We did not deduct bank charges from export price for some
sales to Indian trading companies because these bank charges were
billed to the trading company and not to LMEL/LLPL. We removed the
value of a credit memo from the numerator of the warranty-expense
allocation and determined the value of this credit memo to be a post-
sale adjustment to export price instead of a warranty expense. For
transactions involved in this credit memo we used an average export
price that reflects the single per-unit price to which the parties
agreed in a renegotiated sales contract. Finally, for the denominator
of the warranty-expense allocation we used the total quantity of sales
during the period of review instead of the total quantity of entries.
See Decision Memorandum for a full discussion of the issues.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist on certain welded
carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India for the period May 1,
2008, through April 30, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Producer and/or exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyds Metals & Engineers Limited (LMEL) and Lloyds Line 6.33
Pipe Ltd. (LLPL)..........................................
Lloyds Steel Industries Limited (LSIL)..................... (*)
Jindal Pipes Limited....................................... 6.33
Maharashtra Seamless Limited............................... 6.33
Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd.................................... (**)
Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd................................. 6.33
Universal Tube and Plastic Ind............................. (*)
Ushdev International Ltd................................... (**)
Uttam Galva Steels Ltd..................................... (**)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no
individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.
** No shipments or sales subject to this review. This company reported
that its supplier had knowledge that its merchandise was destined for
the United States.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
For these final results, we divided the total dumping margins
(calculated as the difference between normal value and export price)
for LMEL/LLPL's importers or customers by the total number of metric
tons LMEL/LLPL sold to the importers or customers. We will direct CBP
to assess the resulting per-metric-ton dollar amount against each
metric ton of merchandise in each importer's/customer's entries during
the review period. Additionally, because we have collapsed LMEL and
LLPL (see Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33581), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate entries of LLPL-produced merchandise at the LMEL/LLPL rate.
The Department clarified its automatic-assessment regulation on May
6, 2003. This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise
during the period of review produced by LMEL/LLPL for which LMEL/LLPL
did not know its merchandise was destined
[[Page 69628]]
for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries of merchandise produced by LMEL/LLPL at
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
of Antidumping Duties).
Consistent with Assessment of Antidumping Duties, for companies
which claimed they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the
United States, i.e., LSIL and Universal Tube and Plastic Ind., if any
entries of subject merchandise produced by these entities entered into
the United States during the period of review, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate the unreviewed entries of merchandise at the all-others rate.
With respect to entries by companies that were not selected for
individual examination, i.e., Jindal Pipes Limited, Maharashtra
Seamless Limited, and Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., we will instruct CBP
to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by these
firms at 6.33 percent, the rate established for LMEL/LLPL. See
Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33579.
For companies which reported that their supplier (LMEL) had
knowledge that its merchandise was destined for the United States,
i.e., Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd., Uttam Galva Steels Ltd., and Ushdev
International Ltd., and otherwise had no shipments or sales of their
own, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the assessment
amounts applicable to LMEL/LLPL as discussed above.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of administrative review for all
shipments of certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from
India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates for companies under review will be the
rates listed 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 for that
company; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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; (4) if
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the all-others rate for this proceeding, 7.08
percent. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986). These
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notifications
This notice 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: November 5, 2010.
Edward C. Yang,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
1. Date of Sale
2. Universe of Sales
3. Adjustment to Sales Price
4. Warranty Expense
5. Trading-Company Discount
6. Bank Charges
7. Credit-Expense Period
[FR Doc. 2010-28685 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P