[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18788-18794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8420]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand:
Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 18789]]
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, in response to requests
from Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation (Allied Tube) and Wheatland
Tube Company(Wheatland) (collectively, petitioners). This review covers
the period March 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009. We preliminarily
determine that U.S. sales of subject merchandise have been made by Saha
Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai) 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. We are also rescinding the administrative review of
Pacific Pipe Company Limited (Pacific Pipe). We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on entries of this merchandise produced by
Pacific Pipe at the cash deposit rate required at the time of entry.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
See the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5255.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and
tubes from Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986). On
March 2, 2009, the Department published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this order covering the period
March 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 9077 (March 2,
2009). On April 27, 2009, in response to timely requests by Saha Thai
and Wheatland with respect to exports by Saha Thai during the period of
review (POR), and to a timely request by Allied Tube with respect to
exports by Pacific Pipe, the Department published a notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 19042 (April 27,
2009).
On May 5, 2009, Pacific Pipe reported that it did not have any
shipments or sales of subject merchandise for the last five months of
the POR, from October 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009. The Department
subsequently completed a new shipper review for Pacific Pipe covering
the period March 1, 2008 through September 30, 2008. See Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 4529 (January 28, 2010) (New
Shipper Final Results).
On June 3, 2009, we sent questionnaires to Saha Thai and Pacific
Pipe. We received timely responses to our questionnaire from Saha Thai
on July 13, 2009 and July 27, 2009. We sent supplemental questionnaires
to Saha Thai on September 17, 2009 and December 9, 2009. We received
timely responses to our supplemental questionnaires on October 6, 2009,
October 19, 2009, January 5, 2010, and January 14, 2010.
On November 25, 2009, we published a Federal Register notice
extending the deadline for these preliminary results of review by 120
days to March 31, 2010. See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and
Tubes from Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 61657 (November 25,
2009). Subsequently the Department exercised its discretion to toll
deadlines because of the closure of the Federal Government from
February 5, 2010 through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding were extended by seven days. See Memorandum
to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration,
regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the
Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12,
2010. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review
is April 7, 2010
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. 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 the convenience and purposes of CBP, our
written description of the scope is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Review
Section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations stipulates
that the Secretary may rescind an administrative review of a producer
if there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise
by that producer during the period covered by the review. Pacific Pipe,
in a letter dated May 5, 2009, reported that it did not make any
shipments or sales of subject merchandise for the last five months of
the POR, from October 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009. The one shipment
that Pacific Pipe did make during the first seven months of the POR,
March 1, 2008 through September 30, 2008, was concurrently under review
in a new shipper review. See New Shipper Review Final Results, 75 FR at
4529-4530 (January 28, 2010). Allied Tube responded to Pacific Pipe's
letter on May 8, 2009, by arguing that the Department's regulations and
recent practice permit the rescission of the new shipper review and
continuance of the administrative review. Allied Tube argued that the
Department should follow its practice in Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 15930 (April 8, 2009), where
the Department rescinded the new shipper review and continued the
administrative review. On September 4, 2009, the Department issued a
``No Shipment Inquiry'' to CBP and confirmed that there were no
shipments or entries of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from Thailand exported by Pacific Pipe from October 1, 2008 through
February 28, 2009.
Record evidence establishes that there were no entries of subject
merchandise produced by Pacific Pipe from October 1, 2008 through
February 29, 2009, the final five months of this POR. Further, the sale
and entry made by Pacific Pipe during the period from March 1, 2008
through September 30, 2008 was the subject of a new shipper review. See
New Shipper Review Final Results, 75 FR at 4529-4530 (January 28,
2010). Therefore, the Department is rescinding the administrative
review with respect to Pacific Pipe pursuant to 19 CFR
[[Page 18790]]
351.213(d)(3). The Department will issue appropriate assessment
instructions to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice.
Analysis
Date of Sale
Saha Thai reported contract date as the date of sale for U.S.
sales. The Department considers invoice date to be the presumptive date
of sale. See section 351.401(i)) of the Department's regulations. For
purposes of this review, we examined whether invoice date or another
date better represents the date on which the final material terms of
sale were established. The Department examined sales documentation,
including contracts and invoices, provided by Saha Thai for its U.S.
sales and has preliminarily found that the material terms of sale are
set on the contract date. Where there was a change in material terms
for four sales subsequent to the original contract, Saha Thai issued an
amended contract and the amended contract date was reported as date of
sale.
We preliminarily determine that contract date (or amended contract
date) is the appropriate date of sale for U.S. sales in this
administrative review because it better represents the date upon which
the final material terms of sale were established. This is consistent
with the most recently completed administrative reviews of this order.
See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 61019 (October
15, 2008) (2006-2007 AR Final Results); see Circular Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 54266 (September 14, 2006) (2004-2005 AR
Final Results).
In the home market, the date of invoice is when the material terms
of sale are established. Therefore, we are using the invoice date as
the date of sale for home market sales.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), export price is the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) by the producer or
exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an
unaffiliated purchaser prior to the date of importation. We classified
all of Saha Thai's sales to its U.S. customers as EP sales because, as
in previous administrative reviews of this order, we found that Saha
Thai is not affiliated with its distributors, which are the first
purchasers in the United States. See, e.g., 2006-2007 AR Final Results
and 2004-2005 AR Final Results.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions
from the gross unit price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage
and handling, foreign inland insurance, foreign warehousing, ocean
freight, lighterage charges, U.S. brokerage and handling charges, and
U.S. duties.
Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that EP should be increased
by the amount of any import duties ``imposed by the country of
exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected
by reason, of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United
States. . . .'' Saha Thai claimed an adjustment to EP for the duties
exempted on its imports of inputs (hot-rolled steel coil and zinc) into
a bonded warehouse. In determining whether an adjustment should be made
to EP for this exemption, we look for a reasonable link between the
duties imposed and those rebated or exempted. We do not require that
the imported input be traced directly from importation through
exportation. We do require, however, that the company meet our ``two-
pronged'' test in order for this addition to be made to EP. The first
element is that the import duty and its rebate or exemption be directly
linked to, and dependent upon, one another; the second element is that
the company must demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of the
imported material to account for the duty drawback or exemption granted
for the export of the manufactured product. See, e.g., 2006-2007 AR
Final Results; see also Mittal Steel USA Inc. v. United States, 31 CIT
1395, 1412-1413 (2007); and Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. United States, 70 F.
Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Intl. Trade, 1999).
Saha Thai has provided information that demonstrates that it meets
both prongs of our ``two-pronged'' test. Therefore, for these
preliminary results, we are making an upward adjustment to export price
for these duty exemptions. See ``Analysis Memorandum of Saha Thai Steel
Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from Thailand for the Period 03/01/2008 through 02/28/
2009, dated concurrently with this notice, (Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum); see also 2006-2007 AR Final Results.
Normal Value
A. Cost Averaging Methodology
The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual
weighted-average cost for the POR. See, e.g., Certain Pasta from Italy:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852
(December 13, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 18; and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 (explaining the Department's practice
of computing a single weighted-average cost for the entire period).
However, the Department recognizes that possible distortions may result
if our normal annual average cost method is used during a period of
significant cost changes. In determining whether to deviate from our
normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted average cost, the
Department evaluates the case-specific record evidence using two
primary factors: (1) the change in the cost of manufacturing (COM)
recognized by the respondent during the POR must be deemed significant;
and (2) the record evidence must indicate that sales during the shorter
averaging periods could be reasonably linked with the cost of
production (COP) or constructed value (CV) during the same shorter
averaging periods. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 75
FR 6631 (February 10, 2010) (SSSS from Mexico); see also Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 (December 11, 2008) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (SSPC from Belgium).
1. Significance of Cost Changes
In prior cases, the Department established 25 percent as the
threshold (between the high and low quarter COM) for determining that
the changes in COM are significant enough to warrant a departure from
our standard annual costing approach. See SSPC from Belgium at Comment
4. In the instant case, record evidence shows that Saha Thai
experienced significant changes (i.e., changes that exceeded 25
percent) between the high and low quarterly COM during the POR and that
the change in COM is primarily attributable to the price volatility for
hot-rolled coil, a major input consumed in the production of the carbon
steel pipes and
[[Page 18791]]
tubes and used to produce the merchandise under consideration. See
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for
the Preliminary Results-Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.,''
dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Cost Calculation
Memorandum). We found that hot-rolled coil prices changed significantly
throughout the POR and consequently directly affected the cost of the
material inputs consumed by Saha Thai. See Preliminary Cost Calculation
Memo. Specifically, the record data shows that the percentage
difference between the high and the low quarterly COM clearly exceeded
the 25 percent threshold for four of five control numbers (CONNUMs)
sold in the home market and all five CONNUMs sold in the United States
during the POR. See Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo. As a result, we
have determined for the preliminary results that the changes in Saha
Thai's COM for hot-rolled coil are significant enough to warrant a
departure from our standard cost approach, as these significant cost
changes create distortions in the Department's sales-below-cost test,
as well as in the overall margin calculation.
2. Linkage between Cost and Sales Information
Consistent with past precedent, if the Department finds changes in
costs to be significant in a given period of review, the Department
subsequently evaluates whether there is evidence of linkage between the
cost changes and the sales prices during the POR. The Department's
definition of linkage does not require direct traceability between
specific sales and their specific production costs, but rather relies
on whether there are elements that would indicate a reasonable
correlation between the underlying costs and the final sales prices
levied by the company. See, SSPC from Belgium at Comment 4. These
correlative elements may be measured and defined in a number of ways
depending on the associated industry and the overall production and
sales processes. The Department acknowledges that being able to
reasonably link sales prices and costs during a shorter cost period is
important in deciding whether to depart from our annual average cost
methodology. We believe that requiring too strict a standard for
linkage, however, would unreasonably preclude this remedy for
commodity-type products where there is no pricing mechanism in place
and it may be very difficult to precisely link production costs to
specific sales. We requested that Saha Thai provide comparisons for its
top five home market and its top five US CONNUMs over the twelve months
of the POR. Saha Thai provided this information in its October 6, 2009
and January 14, 2010 responses. To determine whether a reasonable
correlation existed between the sales prices and their underlying costs
during the POR, we compared weighted-average quarterly prices to the
corresponding quarterly COM for the five highest-volume home market
CONNUMs. After reviewing this information and determining that the
sales and costs generally trend in the same direction, we preliminarily
determine that there is linkage between Saha Thai's cost changes and
sales prices during the POR. See Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo.
See, e.g., SSSS from Mexico; see also SSPC from Belgium.
Because we have found significant cost changes in COM as well as
reasonable linkage between costs and sales prices, we have
preliminarily determined that a quarterly costing approach would lead
to more appropriate comparisons in our antidumping duty calculation for
Saha Thai.
B. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, to determine
whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the home market to
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Saha Thai's
volume of home market sales of foreign like product to the volume of
U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the
Act and section 351.404(b) of the Department's regulations, because the
volume of Saha Thai's home market sales of foreign like product was
greater than five percent of the volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise during the POR, we determine that the home market is
viable. Therefore, we used home market sales as the basis for NV in
accordance with section 773(a)(1).
C. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
The Department's practice with respect to the use of home market
sales to affiliated parties for NV is to determine whether such sales
are at arm's-length prices. To examine whether home market sales were
made at arm's length, we compared the starting price of sales to
affiliated customers to the starting price of sales to unaffiliated
customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses,
discounts and packing. We made this comparison on a quarterly basis
consistent with our preliminary decision to use a quarterly costing
approach. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average,
within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the same or comparable
merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales
made to the affiliated parties were at arm's length. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67
FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). In accordance with the Department's
practice, in our margin analysis, we included only those sales to
affiliated parties that were made at arm's length. Where the affiliated
party transactions did not pass the arm's-length test, these sales were
excluded from the NV calculation.
For each affiliated reseller, we requested Saha Thai to report the
first sale to an unaffiliated customer. When the sale to the affiliated
reseller did not pass the arm's-length test and was therefore excluded
from the normal value calculation, we included the sale by the
affiliated reseller to the first unaffiliated customer in our margin
analysis.
D. COP Analysis
We found that Saha Thai made sales below the COP in the most
recently completed segment of this proceeding in which Saha Thai was
examined, and such sales were disregarded. Thus, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that Saha Thai made sales of the subject merchandise
in its comparison market at prices below the COP in the current review
period. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by Saha Thai. For our complete analysis, see
Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated Saha
Thai's COP based on the sum of its costs of materials and conversion
for foreign like product, plus an amount for home market SG&A expenses,
interest expenses and packing costs. See the ``Test of Comparison
Market Sales Prices'' section below for the treatment of comparison
market selling expenses. We relied on home market sales and COP
information provided by Saha Thai in its questionnaire responses,
except where noted below:
a. We have adjusted Saha Thai's cost of carbon steel hot-rolled
coils obtained from an affiliated supplier to reflect the higher of
transfer or market price in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the
[[Page 18792]]
Act (transactions disregarded). Because we have determined that
quarterly average costs are appropriate for the COP analysis, we have
applied the transactions disregarded analysis and calculated the
related adjustments on a quarterly basis.
b. We revised Saha Thai's general and administrative (G&A) expenses
to reflect a rate calculated on non-consolidated producer-specific
financial statements, rather than the consolidated financial
statements.
c. We adjusted the cost of goods sold denominators used in the G&A
and financial expense rates to reflect transactions disregarded
adjustments and to include the cost of services.
d. We revised Saha Thai's reported duty exemptions on hot-rolled
coil and zinc inputs to apply the adjustments as a ratio of the
exempted duty amounts to total purchases of the respective input.
For more detail on these adjustments, refer to Preliminary Cost
Calculation Memorandum.
E. Cost Test
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we compared the
quarterly COP to the home market sales price (less any applicable
movement charges and discounts) by quarter, of the foreign like product
on a product-specific basis in order to determine whether home market
sales had been made at prices below COP.
In determining whether to disregard sales below COP, we examined,
in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and whether such sales were
made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in the normal course of trade. As noted in section
773(b)(1)(D) of the Act, prices are considered to provide for recovery
of costs if such prices are above the weighted average per-unit COP for
the period of investigation or review. In the instant case, we have
relied on a quarterly costing approach. Similar to that used by the
Department in cases of high-inflation (see, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Indonesia, 64 FR 73164
(December 29, 1999) at Comment (1), this methodology restates the
quarterly material costs on a year-end equivalent basis, calculates an
annual weighted-average cost for the POR and then restates it to each
respective quarter. We find that this quarterly costing method meets
the requirements of section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of
a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any
below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-
cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less
than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) they
were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial
quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the indexed weighted-
average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Our cost test for Saha Thai revealed that, for home market sales of
certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were
at prices below the COP. Therefore, we retained all such sales in our
analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test
also indicated that for home market sales of other models, more than 20
percent were sold at prices below the COP within an extended period of
time and were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-cost sales from
our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for
determining NV.
F. Home Market Price
To calculate Saha Thai's home market net price, we deducted
discounts and movement expenses, which included inland freight and
warehousing where appropriate. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act and section 351.410(c) of the Department's regulations, we made
a circumstance of sale adjustment for home market and U.S. credit
expenses, as well as U.S. bank charges. In addition, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs
and added U.S. packing costs. In addition, where applicable, we made
adjustments for differences in costs attributable to physical
characteristics pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and
section 351.410 of the Department's regulations.
Level of Trade
Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, NV is normally the price in the home market that is at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP. The NV LOT is that of the
starting-price sale in the comparison market, or when NV is based on
CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A and profit. For EP, the
U.S. LOT is the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from
exporter to importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different
LOT than EP sales, we examine stages in the marketing and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects the price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between sales
at different levels of trade in the country in which NV is determined,
we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and
under section 351.410(c) of the Department's regulations. See, e.g.,
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
For the U.S. market, Saha Thai reported only one LOT for its EP
sales. For its home market sales, Saha Thai reported that its sales to
unaffiliated customers were at the same level of trade as its U.S.
sales. However, Saha Thai reported that, if the Department used the
downstream sales of any of its affiliated resellers, these sales were
made at a distinct level of trade, and Saha Thai's home market would
consist of two levels of trade.
For Saha Thai's sales made through affiliated resellers, we
consider the relevant functions to be the selling functions of both the
producer and the reseller (i.e., the cumulative selling functions along
the chain of distribution) for purposes of comparing the selling
activities related to each affiliate's sale with those related to the
producer's sale to its unaffiliated customers. If the reseller performs
selling functions that add substantial selling activity in making the
sale, we may find that sales by the reseller are made at a different
LOT than the sales made by the producer.
Saha Thai provided information about the marketing and selling
functions performed by the affiliated resellers for its sales to
unaffiliated customers. This information is sufficient to conduct an
analysis of whether Saha Thai's sales in the home market were made at
more than one LOT. For those affiliated resellers whose sales did not
pass the arm's length test, we have analyzed the information that Saha
Thai provided regarding the marketing and selling
[[Page 18793]]
functions for both Saha Thai and the affiliated resellers. We examined
the information reported by Saha Thai and its affiliated resellers with
respect to the selling and marketing functions, the freight functions,
technical services/warranties functions, and inventory management
functions of Saha Thai and its resellers. We examined the selling
functions and the level of intensity at which Saha Thai performs those
selling functions, as described in the narrative response and Exhibit 9
of Saha Thai's July 13, 2009 questionnaire response and Exhibit 8 of
Saha Thai's October 19, 2009 supplemental questionnaire response.
Information about the specific selling functions we examined, the
intensity at which Saha Thai and its affiliated resellers performed
them, and our analysis is business proprietary, and is detailed in the
``Level of Trade'' section in the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
Based on the facts and our analysis, we have concluded that Saha
Thai's home market sales were made at two distinct levels of trade:
sales directly from Saha Thai to its unaffiliated customers and sales
from Saha Thai through its affiliated resellers to unaffiliated
customers. See ``Level of Trade'' section in the Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum; see also 2006-2007 AR Final Results.
Saha Thai reported that its U.S. sales are made at only one level
of trade, to unaffiliated resellers in the United States. For the U.S.
market, we also examined the information reported by Saha Thai with
respect to the selling and marketing functions, the freight functions,
technical services/warranties functions, and inventory management
functions performed by Saha Thai for sales to its unaffiliated
resellers. We examined the selling functions and the level of intensity
at which Saha Thai performs these selling functions as described in its
narrative response and Exhibit 9 of Saha Thai's July 13, 2009 Section
questionnaire response and Exhibit 8 of Saha Thai's October 19, 2009
supplemental questionnaire response. Information about the specific
selling functions we examined, the intensity at which Saha Thai
performs those selling functions for its U.S. sales (to unaffiliated
resellers) and our analyses is business proprietary, and is detailed in
the ``Level of Trade'' section in the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
Based on the facts and our analyses, we preliminarily determine
that all U.S. sales are made at one LOT. Furthermore, we find that the
U.S. sales are at the same LOT as Saha Thai's home market sales to
unaffiliated customers. For our complete analysis, see ``Level of
Trade'' section in the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum; see also 2006-
2007 AR Final Results.
While we have preliminarily determined that there are two distinct
levels of trade in the home market (LOT 1 and LOT 2) and that the LOT
in the U.S. market matches LOT 1 in the home market, we must consider
whether an LOT adjustment is warranted for those U.S. sales for which
there is not a match in the home market at LOT 1. In accordance with
section 773(a)(7)(A)(ii) of the Act, such an adjustment is warranted
when the difference in LOT is demonstrated to affect price
comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price differences, on
both a CONNUM and a quantity basis, between sales at different levels
of trade in the home market (the basis for NV). However, our decision
to apply the quarterly cost methodology and to perform quarterly price-
to-price comparisons, raises a novel issue with respect to the LOT
analysis of pattern of price differences and any possible LOT
adjustment based on that analysis. Therefore, we request parties
comment on whether the application of the quarterly cost methodology
necessarily requires an evaluation on a quarterly basis of the pattern
of price differences and how any such differences should be analyzed
for purposes of determining whether there is a pattern of price
differences. In addition, we invite parties to comment on whether, if a
pattern of price differences is found to exist, any LOT adjustment
should be done on a yearly basis or on a quarterly basis. These
comments should be submitted no later than ten days from the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the
Department's regulations based on rates certified by the Federal
Reserve.
Preliminary Results of Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.................. 4.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with section 351.212 of
the Department's regulations. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions for Saha Thai directly to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of the final results of this administrative review.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in
these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not
know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the
all-others rate if there is no rate for any intermediate company
involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 239254 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to
all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse for consumption, on or after the publication date of the
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for
Saha Thai, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the
final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be
the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review,
or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer of the subject merchandise is a firm
covered by this review, a prior review, or the LTFV investigation, the
cash deposit rate shall be the ``all other'' rate established in the
LTFV investigated, which is 15.67 percent. These deposit rates, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
Public Comment
Pursuant to section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations, the
Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days
after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to section
351.309 of the Department's regulations, interested parties may submit
written comments in response to those preliminary results.
[[Page 18794]]
Unless extended by the Department, case briefs are to be submitted
within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and
rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be
submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case
briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) statement of the issues; and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served
on interested parties in accordance with section 351.303(f) of the
Department's regulations.
Also, pursuant to section 351.310(c) of the Department's
regulations, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice,
interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise,
the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and
location.
The Department will publish the final results of the administrative
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after publication of the
preliminary results, unless extended. See section 351.213(h) of the
Department's regulations.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations
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 administrative review and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-8420 Filed 4-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S