Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 36663-36668 [E7-13017]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
and Petitioners filed their responses on
June 15, 2007, June 22, 2007, and June
25, 2007, respectively. In addition,
Petitioners filed an amendment to the
petition on June 15, 2007.
Dated: June 27, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–13009 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
The scope of this investigation covers
certain welded carbon quality steel
pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, and with an outside diameter of
0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not
more than 16 inches (406.4 mm),
whether or not stenciled, regardless of
wall thickness, surface finish (e.g.,
black, galvanized, or painted), end
finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end,
grooved, threaded, or threaded and
coupled), or industry specification (e.g.,
ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally
known as standard pipe and structural
pipe (they may also be referred to as
circular, structural, or mechanical
tubing).
Specifically, the term ‘‘carbon
quality’’ includes products in which: (a)
iron predominates, by weight, over each
of the other contained elements; (b) the
carbon content is 2 percent or less, by
weight; and (c) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by
weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
All pipe meeting the physical
description set forth above that is used
in, or intended for use in, standard and
structural pipe applications is covered
by the scope of this investigation.
Standard pipe applications include the
low–pressure conveyance of water,
steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids
and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air conditioning units,
automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses. Standard pipe may also be
used for light load–bearing and
mechanical applications, such as for
fence tubing, and as an intermediate
product for protection of electrical
wiring, such as conduit shells.
Structural pipe is used in construction
applications.
Standard pipe is made primarily to
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) specifications, but
can be made to other specifications.
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–910]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation: Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5831 or (202) 482–
5253, respectively.
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION
The Petition
On June 7, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (Department) received a
petition on imports of circular welded
carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
filed in proper form by Allied Tube &
Conduit, Sharon Tube Company, IPSCO
Tubulars, Inc., Western Tube & Conduit
Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company,
Wheatland Tube Co., i.e., the Ad Hoc
Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From
China, and the United Steelworkers
(collectively Petitioners). The period of
investigation (POI) is October 1, 2006 March 31, 2007.
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), Petitioners alleged that imports of
CWP from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value within the meaning
of section 731 of the Act, and that such
imports are materially injuring and
threaten to injure an industry in the
United States. The Department issued
supplemental questions to Petitioners
on June 11, 2007, and June 19, 2007,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Scope of Investigation
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36663
Standard pipe is made primarily to
ASTM specifications A–53, A–135, and
A–795. Structural pipe is made
primarily to ASTM specifications A–252
and A–500. Standard and structural
pipe may also be produced to
proprietary specifications rather than to
industry specifications. This is often the
case, for example, with fence tubing.
Pipe multiple–stenciled to an ASTM
specification and to any other
specification, such as the American
Petroleum Institute (API) API–5L or 5L
X–42 specifications, is covered by the
scope of this investigation when used
in, or intended for use in, one of the
standard applications listed above,
regardless of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
category under which it is entered. Pipe
used for the production of scaffolding
(but not finished scaffolding) and
conduit shells (but not finished
electrical conduit) are included within
the scope of this investigation.
The scope does not include: (a) pipe
suitable for use in boilers, superheaters,
heat exchangers, condensers, refining
furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether
or not cold drawn; (b) mechanical
tubing, whether or not cold–drawn; (c)
finished electrical conduit; (d) tube and
pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil
country tubular goods produced to API
specifications; and (f) line pipe
produced to API specifications for oil
and gas applications.
The pipe products that are the subject
of this investigation are currently
classifiable in HTSUS statistical
reporting numbers 7306.30.10.00,
7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,
7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.
However, the product description, and
not the HTSUS classification, is
dispositive of whether merchandise
imported into the United States falls
within the scope of the investigation.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the petition, we
discussed the scope with Petitioners to
ensure that it accurately reflects the
product for which the domestic industry
is seeking relief. During this review, we
noted that, while the Department
typically prefers to rely upon physical
characteristics to determine the scope of
product coverage, the scope description
proposed by Petitioners relied upon, in
part, end–use applications as a method
for determining scope coverage. On June
20, 2007, we met with Petitioners to
discuss the scope and its reliance upon
end–use applications as a method for
determining scope coverage. See
Memorandum to The File, through
Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director,
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
36664
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Office 4, from Maisha Cryor, Import
Compliance Specialist, titled ‘‘Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from
the People’s Republic of China: Scope of
the Petition,’’ dated June 22, 2007. As
discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations, we are setting
aside a period for interested parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage.
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323
(May 19, 1997). The Department
encourages all interested parties to
submit such comments, including
comments regarding the scope’s
definition of covered merchandise based
upon end–use application, and whether
additional HTSUS numbers should be
included in the scope description, 14
calendar days after publication of this
initiation notice. Rebuttal comments are
due 7 calendar days thereafter.
Comments should be addressed to
Import Administration’s Central
Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230 - Attention:
Maisha Cryor, Room 3057. The period of
scope consultations is intended to
provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments
and consult with interested parties prior
to the issuance of the preliminary
determination.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed by an interested
party described in subparagraph (C), (D),
(E), (F) or (G) of section 771(9) of the
Act, or on behalf of the domestic
industry. In order to determine whether
a petition has been filed by or on behalf
of the industry, the Department,
pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the
Act, determines whether a minimum
percentage of the relevant industry
supports the petition. A petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (ITC), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
the domestic like product (section
771(10) of the Act), they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v.
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v.
United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644
(1988), aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir.
1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioners do not offer a
definition of domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that CWP
constitutes a single domestic like
product and we have analyzed industry
support in terms of that domestic like
product. For a discussion of the
domestic like product analysis in this
case, see Antidumping Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China, (Initiation
Checklist) at Attachment I, (Analysis of
Industry Support), on file in the Central
Records Unit, Room B–099 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
In determining whether Petitioners
have standing (i.e., those domestic
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
workers and producers supporting the
petition account for (1) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and (2) more than
50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition), we considered the industry
support data contained in the petition
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in Attachment IV,
(Scope of the Petition), to the Initiation
Checklist. To establish industry support,
Petitioners provided their shipments for
the domestic like product for the year
2006, as well as shipments from
supporters of the petition, and
compared them to shipments for the
domestic like product for the industry.
In their second petition supplemental
submission, Petitioners demonstrated
the correlation between shipments and
production. See ‘‘Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China/ Petitioner’s
Response To The Department’s June 19,
2007 Request For Clarification Of
Certain Items Contained In The
Petition,’’ dated June 22, 2007, (Second
Petition Supplemental) at 7. Based on
the fact that total industry production
data for the domestic like product for
2006 is not reasonably available, and
that Petitioners have established that
shipments are a reasonable proxy for
production data, we have relied upon
shipment data for purposes of
measuring industry support. For further
discussion see Initiation Checklist at
Attachment I (Analysis of Industry
Support).
Our review of the data provided in the
petition, supplemental submissions, and
other information readily available to
the Department indicates that
Petitioners have established industry
support. First, the petition established
support from domestic producers (or
workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the
Department is not required to take
further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling). See Sec.
732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the
domestic producers have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under 732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the
domestic producers (or workers) who
support the petition account for at least
25 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product. Finally, the
domestic producers have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because the
domestic producers (or workers) who
support the petition account for more
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the petition was filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within
the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the
Act. See Initiation Checklist at
Attachment I (Analysis of Industry
Support).
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are an
interested party as defined in sections
771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the antidumping
investigation that they are requesting
the Department initiate. See Initiation
Checklist at Attachment I (Analysis of
Industry Support).
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegations of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department based its
decision to initiate this investigation on
imports of CWP from the PRC. The
source of data for the deductions and
adjustments relating to the U.S. price as
well as normal value (NV) for the PRC
are also discussed in the Initiation
Checklist. Should the need arise to use
any of this information as facts available
under section 776 of the Act in our
preliminary or final determinations, we
will reexamine the information and
revise the margin calculations, if
appropriate.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Export Price
Petitioners relied on five U.S. prices
for CWP manufactured in the PRC and
offered by U.S. distributors for sale in
the United States. The prices quoted
were for specific grades and quality of
CWP falling within the scope of this
petition, for delivery to the U.S.
customer within the POI. Petitioners
deducted from the prices the costs
associated with exporting and
delivering the product, including ocean
freight and insurance charges, and
foreign brokerage and handling.
Petitioners did not deduct foreign
inland freight charges from the export
price (EP) because they were unable to
establish the distances between the
Chinese mills and the ports nearest to
those mills. See Volume I of the petition
at 35. Petitioners did deduct an amount
for a U.S. distributor/importer mark–up.
See Volume I of the petition at 34; see
also Initiation Checklist.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Normal Value
Petitioners stated that the PRC is a
non–market economy (NME) and no
determination to the contrary has yet
been made by the Department. In
previous investigations, the Department
has determined that the PRC is a NME.
See Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple
Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007);
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Magnesium Metal
From the People’s Republic of China, 70
FR 9037 (February 24, 2005); and Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of
China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005).
In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i)
of the Act, the presumption of NME
status remains in effect until revoked by
the Department. The presumption of
NME status for the PRC has not been
revoked by the Department and remains
in effect for the purpose of initiating this
investigation. Accordingly, the NV of
the product is appropriately based on
factors of production valued in a
surrogate market economy country in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act. In the course of this investigation,
all parties will have the opportunity to
provide relevant information related to
the issues of the PRC’s NME status and
the granting of separate rates to
individual exporters.
Petitioners selected India as the
surrogate country. See Volume I of the
petition at 28. Petitioners argued that
India is an appropriate surrogate
country because it is a market–economy
country that is at a comparable level of
economic development to the PRC and
is a significant producer and exporter of
CWP. Id. Based on the information
provided by Petitioners, we believe that
its use of India as a surrogate country is
appropriate for purposes of initiating
this investigation. After the initiation of
the investigation, we will solicit
comments regarding surrogate country
selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will
be provided an opportunity to submit
publicly available information to value
factors of production within 40 calendar
days after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination.
Petitioners provided dumping margin
calculations using the Department’s
NME methodology as required by 19
CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR
351.408. Petitioners calculated NV
based on consumption rates for inputs
used to produce CWP experienced by
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36665
U.S. producers. In accordance with
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, Petitioners
valued factors of production, where
possible, on reasonably available, public
surrogate country data. To value certain
factors of production, Petitioners used
official Indian government import
statistics, excluding shipments from
countries previously determined by the
Department to be NME countries and
excluding shipments into India from
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and
Thailand because the Department has
previously excluded prices from these
countries because they maintain
broadly–available, non–industry
specific export subsidies. See, e.g.,
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Administrative Review
and Final Results of New Shipper
Review, 72 FR 27287 and Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 23
(May 15, 2007).
For inputs valued in Indian rupees
and not contemporaneous with the POI,
Petitioners used information from the
wholesale price indices (WPI) in India
as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) for input prices
during the period preceding the POI.
See Second Petition Supplemental at 1
and Exhibit 1. In addition, Petitioners
made currency conversions, where
necessary, based on the POI–average
rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the
POI, as reported on the Department’s
website. Id.
The Department calculates and
publishes the surrogate values for labor
to be used in NME cases on its website.
Therefore, to value labor, Petitioners
used a labor rate of $0.83 per hour,
published on the Department website,
in accordance with the Department’s
regulations. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)
and Initiation Checklist.
Petitioners valued electricity in the
production of CWP based on the Indian
electricity rate as reported in the Key
World Energy Statistics 2003, published
by the International Energy Agency for
the year 2000. See ‘‘Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China/ Petitioner’s
Response To The Department’s June 11,
2007 Request For Clarification Of
Certain Items Contained In The
Petition,’’ dated June 15, 2007 (Petition
Supplemental) at 23 and Exhibit M.
Petitioners originally inflated electricity
to a POI value using the WPI published
by the Reserve Bank of India. See
Volume I of the petition at 31. However,
Petitioners revised the inflator to the
WPI published by the IMF at the
direction of the Department. See
Petition Supplemental at 23 and Exhibit
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
36666
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
M; see also Initiation Checklist for
further details. Petitioners valued
natural gas in the production of CWP
based on Indian natural gas prices
charged to industrial users during a
period overlapping the POI, as reported
by CRISIL Research India. See Volume
I of the petition at 32 and Volume II of
the petition at Exhibit. However, the
Department determined that the Gas
Authority of India, Ltd. (GAIL) was
more appropriate as the source for the
valuation of natural gas. See Initiation
Checklist for further details. Therefore,
the Department requested that
Petitioners recalculate the surrogate
value for natural gas based upon values
published by GAIL. See ‘‘Letter to
Gilbert Kaplan, Counsel for Petitioners,
from Mark Manning, Program Manager,
Office 4, Regarding ‘Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties:
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Pipe from the People’s Republic of
China,’ ’’ dated June 19, 2007. As a
result, Petitioners valued natural gas in
the production of CWP based on Indian
natural gas rates, published by GAIL for
February 2005. See Second Petition
Supplemental at Exhibit 4. Petitioners
inflated natural gas to a POI value using
the WPI published by the IMF. Id.
For the NV calculations, Petitioners
derived the figures for factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative
expenses, and profit from the financial
ratios of two Indian producers of CWP:
Zenith Birla (India) Limited and Surya
Roshni Limited.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by
Petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of CWP from the PRC are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value.
Based upon comparisons of EP to the
NV, calculated in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated
calculated dumping margins for CWP
from the PRC range from 51.34 percent
to 85.55 percent.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than NV.
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share, lost sales,
reduced production, capacity and
capacity utilization rate, reduced
shipments and increased inventories,
underselling and price depression or
suppression, lost revenue, reduced
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:08 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
employment, decline in financial
performance and increase in import
penetration. We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury and causation,
and we have determined that these
allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation. See
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II
(Injury).
Separate–Rates Application
The Department modified the process
by which exporters and foreign
producers may obtain separate–rate
status in NME investigations. See Policy
Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates Practice
and Application of Combination Rates
in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non–Market Economy
Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate–
Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin),
available on the Department’s website at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
The process requires the submission of
a separate–rate status application. Based
on our experience in processing the
separate–rates applications, we have
modified the application for this
investigation to make it more
administrable and easier for applicants
to complete. See Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations:
Certain Lined Paper Products From
India, Indonesia, and the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 58374, 58379
(October 6, 2005); Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation:
Certain Artist Canvas From the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999
(April 28, 2005); and Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations:
Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof
from the People’s Republic of China and
the Republic of Korea, 70 FR 35625,
35629 (June 21, 2005). The specific
requirements for submitting the
separate–rates application in this
investigation are outlined in detail in
the application itself, which will be
available on the Department’s website at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html on the date of publication of
this initiation notice in the Federal
Register. Submission of the separate–
rates application is due no later August
26, 2007.
NME Respondent Selection and
Quantity and Value Questionnaire
For NME investigations, it is the
Department’s practice to request
quantity and value information from all
known exporters identified in the
petition. Although many NME exporters
respond to the quantity and value
information request, at times some
exporters may not have received the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
quantity and value questionnaire or may
not have received it in time to respond
by the specified deadline. Therefore, the
Department typically requests the
assistance of the NME government in
transmitting the Department’s quantity
and value questionnaire to all
companies who manufacture and export
subject merchandise to the United
States, as well as to manufacturers who
produce the subject merchandise for
companies who were engaged in
exporting subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI. The
quantity and value data received from
NME exporters is used as the basis to
select the mandatory respondents.
The Department requires that the
respondents submit a response to both
the quantity and value questionnaire
and the separate–rates application by
the respective deadlines in order to
receive consideration for separate–rate
status. Appendix I of this notice
contains the quantity and value
questionnaire that must be submitted by
all NME exporters no later than July 18,
2007. In addition, the Department will
post the quantity and value
questionnaire along with the filing
instructions on the Department’s
website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/iahighlights-and-news.html. The
Department will send the quantity and
value questionnaire to those exporters
identified in Volume II of the petition at
Exhibit 5, and to the NME government.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME
Investigation
The Department will calculate
combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. The
Separate–Rates and Combination Rates
Bulletin states the following:
{w}hile continuing the practice of
assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the
Department will now assign in its
NME investigations will be specific
to those producers that supplied the
exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that
one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers
which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice
applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate
rate as well as the pool of non–
investigated firms receiving the
weighted–average of the
individually calculated rates. This
practice is referred to as the
application of ‘‘combination rates’’
because such rates apply to specific
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
36667
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
combinations of exporters and one
or more producers. The cash–
deposit rate assigned to an exporter
will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm
that supplied the exporter during
the period of investigation.
See Separate–Rates and Combination
Rates Bulletin, at 6.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been
provided to the government of the PRC.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 25 days after the date on which
it receives notice of this initiation,
whether there is a reasonable indication
that imports of CWP from the PRC are
causing material injury, or threatening
to cause material injury, to a U.S.
industry. See section 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of
the Act. A negative ITC determination
will result in the investigation being
terminated; otherwise, this investigation
will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Based upon our examination of the
petition on CWP from the PRC, we find
that the petition meets the requirements
of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we
are initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
imports of CWP from the PRC are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value. Unless
postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than
140 calendar days after the date of
publication of this initiation notice.
International Trade Commission
Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Dated: June 27, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Where it is not practicable to examine
all known producers/exporters of
subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2)
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended)
permits us to investigate (1) a sample of
exporters, producers, or types of
products that is statistically valid based
on the information available at the time
of selection, or (2) exporters and
producers accounting for the largest
volume and value of the subject
merchandise that can reasonably be
examined.
In the chart below, please provide the
total quantity and total value of all your
sales of merchandise covered by the
scope of this investigation (see scope
section of this notice), produced in the
PRC, and exported/shipped to the
United States during the period October
1, 2006, through March 31, 2007.
Market
Total Quantity
Terms of Sale
Total Value
United States .......................................................................................................
1. Export Price Sales ...........................................................................................
2. ..........................................................................................................................
a. Exporter name .................................................................................................
b. Address ............................................................................................................
c. Contact .............................................................................................................
d. Phone No. ........................................................................................................
e. Fax No. ............................................................................................................
3. Constructed Export Price Sales ......................................................................
4. Further Manufactured Sales ............................................................................
TOTAL SALES ........................................................................................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
................................
• Please include any sales exported by
your company to a third–country
market economy reseller where you
had knowledge that the
merchandise was destined to be
resold to the United States.
• If you are a producer of subject
merchandise, please include any
sales manufactured by your
company that were subsequently
exported by an affiliated exporter to
the United States.
• Please do not include any sales of
merchandise manufactured in Hong
Kong in your figures.
Total Quantity:
• Please report quantity on a metric
ton basis. If any conversions were
used, please provide the conversion
formula and source.
Terms of Sales:
• Please report all sales on the same
terms, such as ‘‘free on board’’ at
port of export.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Total Value:
• All sales values should be reported
in U.S. dollars. Please provide any
exchange rates used and their
respective dates and sources.
Export Price Sales:
• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as
an export price sale when the first
sale to an unaffiliated customer
occurs before importation into the
United States.
• Please include any sales exported by
your company directly to the
United States.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Constructed Export Price Sales:
• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as
a constructed export price sale
when the first sale to an unaffiliated
customer occurs after importation.
However, if the first sale to the
unaffiliated customer is made by a
person in the United States
affiliated with the foreign exporter,
constructed export price applies
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
even if the sale occurs prior to
importation.
• Please include any sales exported by
your company directly to the
United States.
• Please include any sales exported by
your company to a third–country
market economy reseller where you
had knowledge that the
merchandise was destined to be
resold to the United States.
• If you are a producer of subject
merchandise, please include any
sales manufactured by your
company that were subsequently
exported by an affiliated exporter to
the United States.
• Please do not include any sales of
merchandise manufactured in Hong
Kong in your figures.
Further Manufactured Sales:
• Further manufacture or assembly
(including re–packing) sales
(‘‘further manufactured sales’’)
refers to merchandise that
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
36668
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 128 / Thursday, July 5, 2007 / Notices
undergoes further manufacture or
assembly in the United States
before being sold to the first
unaffiliated customer.
• Further manufacture or assembly
costs include amounts incurred for
direct materials, labor and
overhead, plus amounts for general
and administrative expense, interest
expense, and additional packing
expense incurred in the country of
further manufacture, as well as all
costs involved in moving the
product from the U.S. port of entry
to the further manufacturer.
[FR Doc. E7–13017 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–810]
Stainless Steel Bar from India:
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Holland or Brandon Farlander,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–1279 or (202) 482–
0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On June 26, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published an extension of the time limit
to complete the final results of the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel bar from India covering the period
February 1, 2005, through January 31,
2006. See Stainless Steel Bar from India:
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 35033
(June 26, 2007). Due to a clerical error,
the due date for the completion of the
final results was listed as September 6,
2007. The Department hereby amends
the date on which the final results are
due for completion. The final results are
now due on September 4, 2007.
Extension of Time Limits for Final
Results
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:43 Jul 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
requires the Department to issue the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an
antidumping duty order for which a
review is requested and issue the final
results within 120 days after the date on
which the preliminary results are
published. However, if it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend these deadlines to
a maximum of 365 days and 180 days,
respectively.
In accordance with 782(i)(3) of the
Act, the Department conducted on–site
verification of responses submitted by
two respondents in this review in May
and June 2007. Accordingly, the
Department must still issue the
verification findings. Therefore, we find
that it is not practicable to complete this
review within the originally anticipated
time limit (i.e., by July 5, 2007). Thus,
the Department is extending the time
limit for completion of the final results
to no later than September 6, 2007, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 28, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–13011 Filed 7–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–911]
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigation: Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
July 5, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Damian Felton, Yasmin Nair or Nancy
Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0133, (202) 482–
3813 and (202) 482–0196, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Initiation Of Investigations:
The Petition
On June 7, 2007, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received
a petition filed in proper form by the Ad
Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from
China and its individual members
(Allied Tube & Conduit; IPSCO
Tubulars, Inc.; Northwest Pipe
Company; Sharon Tube Company;
Western Tube & Conduit Corporation;
Wheatland Tube Company; and the
United Steelworkers) (collectively,
‘‘petitioners’’). The Department received
timely information from petitioners
supplementing the petition on June 15,
June 20 and June 25, 2007.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), petitioners allege that
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
of circular welded carbon quality steel
pipe (‘‘CWP’’) in the People’s Republic
of China ( the ‘‘PRC’’), receive
countervailable subsidies within the
meaning of section 701 of the Act and
that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury
to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that petitioners
filed the petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in sections
771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and
petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
countervailing duty investigation (see
‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition’’ section below).
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers
certain welded carbon quality steel
pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, and with an outside diameter of
0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not
more than 16 inches (406.4 mm),
whether or not stenciled, regardless of
wall thickness, surface finish (e.g.,
black, galvanized, or painted), end
finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end,
grooved, threaded, or threaded and
coupled), or industry specification (e.g.,
ASTM, proprietary, or other), generally
known as standard pipe and structural
pipe (they may also be referred to as
circular, structural, or mechanical
tubing).
Specifically, the term ‘‘carbon
quality’’ includes products in which: (a)
iron predominates, by weight, over each
of the other contained elements; (b) the
carbon content is 2 percent or less, by
weight; and (c) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity, by
weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36663-36668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13017]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-910]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5831 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.
Initiation Of Investigation
The Petition
On June 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a
petition on imports of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP)
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) filed in proper form by
Allied Tube & Conduit, Sharon Tube Company, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc.,
Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Wheatland
Tube Co., i.e., the Ad Hoc Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From China,
and the United Steelworkers (collectively Petitioners). The period of
investigation (POI) is October 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), Petitioners alleged that imports of CWP from the PRC
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such
imports are materially injuring and threaten to injure an industry in
the United States. The Department issued supplemental questions to
Petitioners on June 11, 2007, and June 19, 2007, and Petitioners filed
their responses on June 15, 2007, June 22, 2007, and June 25, 2007,
respectively. In addition, Petitioners filed an amendment to the
petition on June 15, 2007.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon
quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an
outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than
16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall
thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end
finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded
and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., ASTM, proprietary, or
other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may
also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing).
Specifically, the term ``carbon quality'' includes products in
which: (a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other
contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by
weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity,
by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above that is
used in, or intended for use in, standard and structural pipe
applications is covered by the scope of this investigation. Standard
pipe applications include the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam,
natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and
mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and as an
intermediate product for protection of electrical wiring, such as
conduit shells. Structural pipe is used in construction applications.
Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) specifications, but can be made to other
specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications
A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM
specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and structural pipe may also
be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry
specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing.
Pipe multiple-stenciled to an ASTM specification and to any other
specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L or
5L X-42 specifications, is covered by the scope of this investigation
when used in, or intended for use in, one of the standard applications
listed above, regardless of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) category under which it is entered. Pipe used for
the production of scaffolding (but not finished scaffolding) and
conduit shells (but not finished electrical conduit) are included
within the scope of this investigation.
The scope does not include: (a) pipe suitable for use in boilers,
superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and
feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) mechanical tubing,
whether or not cold-drawn; (c) finished electrical conduit; (d) tube
and pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced
to API specifications; and (f) line pipe produced to API specifications
for oil and gas applications.
The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are
currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers
7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40,
7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. However, the product
description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of
whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the
scope of the investigation.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with
Petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which
the domestic industry is seeking relief. During this review, we noted
that, while the Department typically prefers to rely upon physical
characteristics to determine the scope of product coverage, the scope
description proposed by Petitioners relied upon, in part, end-use
applications as a method for determining scope coverage. On June 20,
2007, we met with Petitioners to discuss the scope and its reliance
upon end-use applications as a method for determining scope coverage.
See Memorandum to The File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Office
Director,
[[Page 36664]]
Office 4, from Maisha Cryor, Import Compliance Specialist, titled
``Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic
of China: Scope of the Petition,'' dated June 22, 2007. As discussed in
the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62
FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all
interested parties to submit such comments, including comments
regarding the scope's definition of covered merchandise based upon end-
use application, and whether additional HTSUS numbers should be
included in the scope description, 14 calendar days after publication
of this initiation notice. Rebuttal comments are due 7 calendar days
thereafter. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's
Central Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 - Attention:
Maisha Cryor, Room 3057. The period of scope consultations is intended
to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of
the preliminary determination.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by
an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F) or (G)
of section 771(9) of the Act, or on behalf of the domestic industry. In
order to determine whether a petition has been filed by or on behalf of
the industry, the Department, pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the
Act, determines whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry
supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the
domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i)
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like
product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover,
section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not
establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more
than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other
information in order to determine if there is support for the petition,
as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support
using a statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir.
1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on
the record, we have determined that CWP constitutes a single domestic
like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that
domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Investigation Initiation
Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's
Republic of China, (Initiation Checklist) at Attachment I, (Analysis of
Industry Support), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of
the main Department of Commerce building.
In determining whether Petitioners have standing (i.e., those
domestic workers and producers supporting the petition account for (1)
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like
product and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic
like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the petition), we considered the
industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the
domestic like product as defined in Attachment IV, (Scope of the
Petition), to the Initiation Checklist. To establish industry support,
Petitioners provided their shipments for the domestic like product for
the year 2006, as well as shipments from supporters of the petition,
and compared them to shipments for the domestic like product for the
industry. In their second petition supplemental submission, Petitioners
demonstrated the correlation between shipments and production. See
``Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic
of China/ Petitioner's Response To The Department's June 19, 2007
Request For Clarification Of Certain Items Contained In The Petition,''
dated June 22, 2007, (Second Petition Supplemental) at 7. Based on the
fact that total industry production data for the domestic like product
for 2006 is not reasonably available, and that Petitioners have
established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data,
we have relied upon shipment data for purposes of measuring industry
support. For further discussion see Initiation Checklist at Attachment
I (Analysis of Industry Support).
Our review of the data provided in the petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First,
the petition established support from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling). See Sec. 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic
producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support
the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because
the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account
for more
[[Page 36665]]
than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced
by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition
to, the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the
petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist at
Attachment I (Analysis of Industry Support).
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
antidumping investigation that they are requesting the Department
initiate. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment I (Analysis of
Industry Support).
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to
initiate this investigation on imports of CWP from the PRC. The source
of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price
as well as normal value (NV) for the PRC are also discussed in the
Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our
preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.
Export Price
Petitioners relied on five U.S. prices for CWP manufactured in the
PRC and offered by U.S. distributors for sale in the United States. The
prices quoted were for specific grades and quality of CWP falling
within the scope of this petition, for delivery to the U.S. customer
within the POI. Petitioners deducted from the prices the costs
associated with exporting and delivering the product, including ocean
freight and insurance charges, and foreign brokerage and handling.
Petitioners did not deduct foreign inland freight charges from the
export price (EP) because they were unable to establish the distances
between the Chinese mills and the ports nearest to those mills. See
Volume I of the petition at 35. Petitioners did deduct an amount for a
U.S. distributor/importer mark-up. See Volume I of the petition at 34;
see also Initiation Checklist.
Normal Value
Petitioners stated that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) and
no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department.
In previous investigations, the Department has determined that the PRC
is a NME. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19690
(April 19, 2007); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 9037
(February 24, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005). In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains
in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME
status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains
in effect for the purpose of initiating this investigation.
Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of
production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation,
all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information
related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of
separate rates to individual exporters.
Petitioners selected India as the surrogate country. See Volume I
of the petition at 28. Petitioners argued that India is an appropriate
surrogate country because it is a market-economy country that is at a
comparable level of economic development to the PRC and is a
significant producer and exporter of CWP. Id. Based on the information
provided by Petitioners, we believe that its use of India as a
surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this
investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will
solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors
of production within 40 calendar days after the date of publication of
the preliminary determination.
Petitioners provided dumping margin calculations using the
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated NV based on consumption
rates for inputs used to produce CWP experienced by U.S. producers. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, Petitioners valued
factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public
surrogate country data. To value certain factors of production,
Petitioners used official Indian government import statistics,
excluding shipments from countries previously determined by the
Department to be NME countries and excluding shipments into India from
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand because the Department
has previously excluded prices from these countries because they
maintain broadly-available, non-industry specific export subsidies.
See, e.g., Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final
Results of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 27287 and Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 23 (May 15, 2007).
For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the
POI, Petitioners used information from the wholesale price indices
(WPI) in India as published in the International Financial Statistics
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for input prices during the
period preceding the POI. See Second Petition Supplemental at 1 and
Exhibit 1. In addition, Petitioners made currency conversions, where
necessary, based on the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for
the POI, as reported on the Department's website. Id.
The Department calculates and publishes the surrogate values for
labor to be used in NME cases on its website. Therefore, to value
labor, Petitioners used a labor rate of $0.83 per hour, published on
the Department website, in accordance with the Department's
regulations. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) and Initiation Checklist.
Petitioners valued electricity in the production of CWP based on
the Indian electricity rate as reported in the Key World Energy
Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency for the
year 2000. See ``Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People's Republic of China/ Petitioner's Response To The Department's
June 11, 2007 Request For Clarification Of Certain Items Contained In
The Petition,'' dated June 15, 2007 (Petition Supplemental) at 23 and
Exhibit M. Petitioners originally inflated electricity to a POI value
using the WPI published by the Reserve Bank of India. See Volume I of
the petition at 31. However, Petitioners revised the inflator to the
WPI published by the IMF at the direction of the Department. See
Petition Supplemental at 23 and Exhibit
[[Page 36666]]
M; see also Initiation Checklist for further details. Petitioners
valued natural gas in the production of CWP based on Indian natural gas
prices charged to industrial users during a period overlapping the POI,
as reported by CRISIL Research India. See Volume I of the petition at
32 and Volume II of the petition at Exhibit. However, the Department
determined that the Gas Authority of India, Ltd. (GAIL) was more
appropriate as the source for the valuation of natural gas. See
Initiation Checklist for further details. Therefore, the Department
requested that Petitioners recalculate the surrogate value for natural
gas based upon values published by GAIL. See ``Letter to Gilbert
Kaplan, Counsel for Petitioners, from Mark Manning, Program Manager,
Office 4, Regarding `Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties:
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of
China,' '' dated June 19, 2007. As a result, Petitioners valued natural
gas in the production of CWP based on Indian natural gas rates,
published by GAIL for February 2005. See Second Petition Supplemental
at Exhibit 4. Petitioners inflated natural gas to a POI value using the
WPI published by the IMF. Id.
For the NV calculations, Petitioners derived the figures for
factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and
profit from the financial ratios of two Indian producers of CWP: Zenith
Birla (India) Limited and Surya Roshni Limited.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of CWP from the PRC are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based upon
comparisons of EP to the NV, calculated in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, the estimated calculated dumping margins for CWP
from the PRC range from 51.34 percent to 85.55 percent.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise
sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured
condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced
production, capacity and capacity utilization rate, reduced shipments
and increased inventories, underselling and price depression or
suppression, lost revenue, reduced employment, decline in financial
performance and increase in import penetration. We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Injury).
Separate-Rates Application
The Department modified the process by which exporters and foreign
producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See
Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate-Rates and Combination Rates
Bulletin), available on the Department's website at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The process requires the submission
of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in
processing the separate-rates applications, we have modified the
application for this investigation to make it more administrable and
easier for applicants to complete. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, Indonesia, and
the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 58374, 58379 (October 6, 2005);
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas
From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28,
2005); and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the
Republic of Korea, 70 FR 35625, 35629 (June 21, 2005). The specific
requirements for submitting the separate-rates application in this
investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which
will be available on the Department's website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this
initiation notice in the Federal Register. Submission of the separate-
rates application is due no later August 26, 2007.
NME Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire
For NME investigations, it is the Department's practice to request
quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in
the petition. Although many NME exporters respond to the quantity and
value information request, at times some exporters may not have
received the quantity and value questionnaire or may not have received
it in time to respond by the specified deadline. Therefore, the
Department typically requests the assistance of the NME government in
transmitting the Department's quantity and value questionnaire to all
companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United
States, as well as to manufacturers who produce the subject merchandise
for companies who were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI. The quantity and value data received from
NME exporters is used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents.
The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rates
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status. Appendix I of this notice
contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by
all NME exporters no later than July 18, 2007. In addition, the
Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with
the filing instructions on the Department's website at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send
the quantity and value questionnaire to those exporters identified in
Volume II of the petition at Exhibit 5, and to the NME government.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The Separate-Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states
the following:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to
specific
[[Page 36667]]
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit
rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both
exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied
the exporter during the period of investigation.
See Separate-Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon our examination of the petition on CWP from the PRC, we
find that the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the
Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to
determine whether imports of CWP from the PRC are being, or are likely
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless
postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140
calendar days after the date of publication of this initiation notice.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been provided to the government of
the PRC.
International Trade Commission Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date
on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of CWP from the PRC are causing
material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S.
industry. See section 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. A negative ITC
determination will result in the investigation being terminated;
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: June 27, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of
subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as
amended) permits us to investigate (1) a sample of exporters,
producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on
the information available at the time of selection, or (2) exporters
and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value
of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this
investigation (see scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC,
and exported/shipped to the United States during the period October 1,
2006, through March 31, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Total Quantity Terms of Sale Total Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States....................................... .................. .................. ..................
1. Export Price Sales............................... .................. .................. ..................
2................................................... .................. .................. ..................
a. Exporter name................................... .................. .................. ..................
b. Address......................................... .................. .................. ..................
c. Contact......................................... .................. .................. ..................
d. Phone No........................................ .................. .................. ..................
e. Fax No.......................................... .................. .................. ..................
3. Constructed Export Price Sales................... .................. .................. ..................
4. Further Manufactured Sales....................... .................. .................. ..................
Total Sales......................................... .................. .................. ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Quantity:
Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any
conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and
source.
Terms of Sales:
Please report all sales on the same terms, such as ``free
on board'' at port of export.
Total Value:
All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars.
Please provide any exchange rates used and their respective dates and
sources.
Export Price Sales:
Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price
sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before
importation into the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company directly
to the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company to a
third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the
merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
Please do not include any sales of merchandise
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.
Constructed Export Price Sales:
Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed
export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer
occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the
unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States
affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies
even if the sale occurs prior to importation.
Please include any sales exported by your company directly
to the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company to a
third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the
merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
Please do not include any sales of merchandise
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.
Further Manufactured Sales:
Further manufacture or assembly (including re-packing)
sales (``further manufactured sales'') refers to merchandise that
[[Page 36668]]
undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before
being sold to the first unaffiliated customer.
Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts
incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for
general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional
packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well
as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry
to the further manufacturer.
[FR Doc. E7-13017 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S