Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 31966-31970 [E8-12606]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31966
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
participate in the Sunset Review must
provide substantive comments in
response to the notice of initiation no
later than 30 days after the date of
initiation.
This notice is not required by statute
but is published as a service to the
international trading community.
Dated: May 30, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–12609 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–911]
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Pipe from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Final
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that
countervailable subsidies are being
provided to producers and exporters of
circular welded carbon quality steel
pipe (‘‘CWP’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). For
information on the estimated
countervailing duty rates, please see the
‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section,
below.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
June 5, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Subler, Damian Felton or Salim
Bhabhrawala, 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)
482–0189, (202) 482–0133 or (202) 482–
1784 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petitioner
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
The Petitioners in this investigation
are the Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe
Imports from the People’s Republic of
China and the United States Steel
Workers (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are
measuring subsidies, or period of
investigation, is January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
Case History
The following events have occurred
since the announcement of the
preliminary determination published in
the Federal Register on November 13,
2007. See Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination; Preliminary Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances; and Alignment of Final
Countervailing Duty Determination with
Final Antidumping Duty Determination,
72 FR 63875 (November 13, 2007)
(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
On November 13, 2007, the
Department issued questionnaires to
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘East
Pipe’’); Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and
Technologies Co., Ltd., Kingland Group
Co., Ltd., Beijing Kingland Century
Technologies Co., Ltd., Zhejiang
Kingland Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd.,
and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ‘‘Kingland’’) and, the
Government of the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘GOC’’) regarding new subsidy
allegations made by petitioners on
October 3, 2007. We received responses
to these questionnaires from Kingland
on November 22, 2007, and from the
GOC and East Pipe on December 5,
2007.
We issued supplemental
questionnaires to East Pipe and
Kingland on November 16, 2007, and to
the GOC on November 19, 2007. We
received responses to these
questionnaires from Kingland on
December 4, 2007, from East Pipe on
December 12, 2007, and from the GOC
on December 17, 2007. We issued
additional supplemental questionnaires
to Kingland on December 14, 2007, and
East Pipe on December 17, 2007. We
received responses to these
questionnaires from Kingland and East
Pipe on December 27, 2007.
The GOC, East Pipe, Kingland,
Petitioners, and interested parties also
submitted factual information,
comments, and arguments at numerous
instances prior to the final
determination based on various
deadlines for submissions of factual
information and/or arguments
established by the Department
subsequent to the Preliminary
Determination.
From January 14 through January 23,
2008, we conducted verification of the
questionnaire responses submitted by
the GOC, Kingland, and East Pipe.
On April 9, 2008, we issued our post–
preliminary determination regarding the
provision of land for less than adequate
remuneration and new subsidy
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
allegations. We addressed our
preliminary findings in an April 9,
2008, memorandum to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, entitled Post–
Preliminary Findings for the Provision
of Land for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration and New Subsidy
Allegations, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’).
We received case briefs from the GOC,
East Pipe, Kingland, Petitioners, certain
members of the Specialty Steel Industry
of North America (‘‘SSINA’’), United
States Steel Corporation (‘‘US Steel’’),
Western International Forest Products,
LLC (‘‘Western’’), MAN Ferrostaal, Inc.,
Commercial Metals Company and QT
Trading LP (collectively, ‘‘MAN
Ferrostaal’’), and SeAH Steel America
(‘‘SSA’’) on April 17, 2008. The same
parties submitted rebuttal briefs on
April 22 and April 29, 2008. We held a
hearing for this investigation on May 5,
2008.
Scope of the 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.
Standard pipe is made primarily to
American Society for Testing and
Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) specifications, but
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
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 a standard
and/or structural specification and to
any other specification, such as the
American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’)
API–5L specification, is also covered by
the scope of this investigation when it
meets the physical description set forth
above and also has one or more of the
following characteristics: is 32 feet in
length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50
mm) in outside diameter; has a
galvanized and/or painted surface
finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled
end finish. (The term ‘‘painted’’ does
not include coatings to inhibit rust in
transit, such as varnish, but includes
coatings such as polyester.)
The scope of this investigation 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) finished
scaffolding; (e) tube and pipe hollows
for redrawing; (f) oil country tubular
goods produced to API specifications;
and (g) line pipe produced to only API
specifications.
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, 7306.30.50.90,
7306.50.10.00, 7306.50.50.50,
7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10,
7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and
7306.19.51.50. However, the product
description, and not the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) classification, is dispositive
of whether merchandise imported into
the United States falls within the scope
of the investigation.
Scope Comments
The scope listed above has changed
from the Preliminary Determination.
On December 19, 2007, Petitioners
requested that the Department clarify
the scope of this investigation and the
companion antidumping duty
investigation of CWP from the PRC. We
have analyzed the request and
comments of the interested parties
regarding the scope of this investigation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
Our position on these comments is
discussed in the final determination in
the companion antidumping duty
investigation of CWP from the PRC.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act),
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from the PRC
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to a U.S. industry. On August 3,
2007, the ITC published its preliminary
determination that there is a reasonable
indication that an industry in the
United States is materially injured or
threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from China of circular
welded carbon–quality steel pipe. 72 FR
43295.
Critical Circumstances
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department determined that critical
circumstances exist with respect to
imports of circular welded pipe from
certain PRC exporters, pursuant to
section 703(e) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.206. Preliminary Determination, 72
FR at 63879–80. The Department
continues to find critical circumstances
in this final determination. For further
discussion on this issue, see ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination,’’ from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated May 29, 2008
(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) at
Comments 10, 11, and 12, and
Memorandum to the File Re ‘‘Critical
Circumstances Analysis for Zhejiang
Kingland Pipeline and Technologies
Co., Ltd. Import Shipment Analysis for
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and
Technologies Co., Ltd. and ‘‘All Others’’
(May 29, 2008) (‘‘Final Critical
Circumstances Memorandum’’) (this
memorandum is on file in the
Department’s CRU).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. Attached to this
notice as an Appendix is a list of the
issues that parties have raised and to
which we have responded in the
Decision Memorandum. Parties can find
a complete discussion of all issues
raised in this investigation and the
corresponding recommendations in this
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31967
public memorandum, which is on file in
the CRU. In addition, a complete
version of the Decision Memorandum
can be accessed directly on the Internet
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper
copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act
provide that the Department shall apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia,
necessary information is not on the
record or an interested party or any
other person: (A) withholds information
that has been requested; (B) fails to
provide information within the
deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the
Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding; or
(D) provides information that cannot be
verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information if
it can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Section 776(b)
of the Act also authorizes the
Department to use as adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived
from the petition, the final
determination, a previous
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
31968
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
‘‘{i}nformation derived from the
petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, attached to H.R. Rep.
No. 103–316, Vol. I at 870 (1994),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773,
4163 (‘‘SAA’’). Corroborate means that
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value. See SAA at 870. To
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.
The SAA emphasizes, however, that the
Department need not prove that the
selected facts available are the best
alternative information. See SAA at 869.
The Department has concluded that it
is appropriate to base the final
determination for Tianjin Shuangjie
Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shuangjie’’)
on facts otherwise available. Shuangjie
failed to respond at all to the
Department’s October 24, 2007, request
for shipment data relating to the
allegation of critical circumstances, did
not respond to the Department’s October
25, 2007, supplemental questionnaire,
and finally, on October 31, 2007,
withdrew all of its proprietary
information from the record.
Consequently, the use of facts
otherwise available is warranted under
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
In selecting from among the facts
available, the Department has
determined that an adverse inference is
warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act because, in addition to not fully
responding to all of our requests for
information, Shuangjie withdrew from
all participation in the investigation and
did not provide the Department with the
opportunity to verify the information it
did submit. Thus, Shuangjie failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability, and our final determination is
based on total AFA.
We have also determined that it is
appropriate to apply facts available with
respect to certain information that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
GOC failed to provide, or information
that could not be verified. Specifically,
despite the Department’s requests to
submit sub–national government plans
relating to the steel industry in the PRC,
the GOC stated that none existed.
However, at verification the Department
discovered the existence of the
Shandong Provincial Steel Plan.
Additionally, the Department was
unable to verify information regarding
the level of state ownership in the HRS
industry in the PRC because the GOC
misrepresented the source of the data. In
both instances, the GOC failed to act to
the best of its ability and, consequently,
application of AFA is warranted.
Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the
Department to rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any information placed on the
record. It is the Department’s practice to
select, as AFA, the highest calculated
rate in any segment of the proceeding.
See, e.g., Certain In–shell Roasted
Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of
Iran: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
66165 (November 13, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at ‘‘Analysis of
Programs’’ & Comment 1.
The Department’s practice when
selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to
ensure that the margin is sufficiently
adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of
the facts available role to induce
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner.’’ See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Static Random Access Memory
Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR
8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The
Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that
the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See
SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate
balance between providing a respondent
with an incentive to respond accurately
and imposing a rate that is reasonably
related to the respondent’s prior
commercial activity, selecting the
highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common
sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of
current margins, because, if it were not
so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
would have produced current
information showing the margin to be
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United
States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Therefore, for every program based on
the provision of goods at less than
adequate remuneration, the Department
used the Kingland rate for the provision
of hot–rolled steel for less than adequate
remuneration. For value added tax
(‘‘VAT’’) programs, we are unable to
utilize company–specific rates from this
proceeding because neither respondent
received any countervailable subsidies
from these subsidy programs. Therefore,
for VAT programs we are also applying
the highest subsidy rate for any program
otherwise listed, which in this instance
is Kingland’s rate for the provision of
hot–rolled steel for less than adequate
remuneration.
Similarly, for the grant programs, we
are not relying on the highest calculated
final rate because it is de minimis.
Instead, we are applying the highest
calculated final subsidy rate, which in
this instance is Kingland’s rate for the
provision of hot–rolled steel for less
than adequate remuneration.
Finally, for the six alleged income tax
programs pertaining to either the
reduction of the income tax rates or
exemption from income tax, we have
applied an adverse inference that
Shuangjie paid no income tax during
the period of investigation (i.e., calendar
year 2006). The standard income tax
rate for corporations in the PRC is 30
percent, plus a 3 percent provincial
income tax rate. Therefore, the highest
possible benefit for these six income tax
rate programs is 33 percent. We are
applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a
combined basis (i.e., the six programs
combined provided a 33 percent
benefit). This 33 percent AFA rate does
not apply to income tax deduction or
credit programs. For income tax
deduction or credit programs, we are
applying the highest subsidy rate for
any program otherwise listed, which in
this instance is Kingland’s rate for the
provision of hot–rolled-steel at less than
adequate remuneration.
In a change from the Preliminary
Determination, we are not assigning
rates for alleged provincial subsidy
programs where record evidence shows
that Tianjin Shuangjie was not located
in those provinces. See Decision
Memorandum at Comment 15.
We do not need to corroborate these
rates because they are not considered
secondary information as they are based
on information obtained in the course of
this investigation, pursuant to section
776(c) of the Act. See also SAA at 870.
Regarding the application of adverse
facts available to the GOC, we have
treated companies as state–owned
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
where the GOC did not provide
information regarding the companies’
ownership. Also, where the provincial
steel plan was not provided, we are
finding that policy lending existed in
that province. See Decision
Memorandum at ‘‘Analysis of
Programs;’’ Comment 3; and Comment
8.
and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we
instructed the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend
liquidation of entries of CWP
manufactured/exported by Kingland,
Shuangjie and ‘‘all other’’ Chinese
exports of CWP which were entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after November 13,
2007, and to apply the suspension of
Suspension of Liquidation
liquidation to any unliquidated entries
In accordance with section
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse
705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
for consumption, on or after August 15,
calculated an individual rate for the
2007 (90 days before the date of
companies under investigation, East
publication of the Preliminary
Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie. Section
Determination. Also, in accordance with
705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states that for
section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed
companies not investigated, we will
determine an ‘‘all others’’ rate equal to
CBP to discontinue the suspension of
the weighted average countervailable
liquidation for countervailing duty
subsidy rates established for exporters
purposes for subject merchandise
and producers individually
entered on or after March 12, 2008, but
investigated, excluding any zero and de to continue the suspension of
minimis countervailable subsidy rates,
liquidation of entries made from August
and any rates determined entirely under 15, 2007, through March 12, 2008.
section 776. As Shuangjie’s rate was
Preliminary Determination, 72 FR at
calculated under section 776 of the Act, 6386.
it is not included in the ‘‘all others’’
For entries of CWP manufactured/
rate.
exported by East Pipe, we did not
Nothwithstanding the language of
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation
section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we
have not calculated the ‘‘all others’’ rate because we preliminarily determined
by weight averaging the rates of East
that East Pipe did not receive any
Pipe and Kingland, because doing so
countervailable subsidies.
risks disclosure of proprietary
We will issue a countervailing duty
information. Therefore, we have
order and reinstate the suspension of
calculated a simple average of the two
liquidation under section 706(a) of the
responding firms’ rates. Since there
Act (for all companies including East
were either no or de minimis
Pipe) if the International Trade
countervailable export subsidies for
Kingland and East Pipe and because the Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issues a final
affirmative injury determination, and
‘‘all others’’ rate is a simple average
will require a cash deposit of estimated
based on the individually investigated
countervailing duties for such entries of
exporters and producers, the ‘‘all
merchandise in the amounts indicated
others’’ rate does not include export
above. If the ITC determines that
subsidies.
material injury, or threat of material
Net Subsidy
injury, does not exist, this proceeding
Exporter/Manufacturer
Rate
will be terminated and all estimated
duties deposited or securities posted as
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co.,
Ltd. ....................................
29.57% a result of the suspension of liquidation
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline
will be refunded or canceled.
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
and Technologies Co.,
Ltd., and affiliated companies. ...................................
Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe
Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Shuangjie
Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Wa Song Imp. &
Exp. Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin
Shuanglian Galvanizing
Products Co., Ltd. .............
All Others ..............................
ITC Notification
44.86 %
In accordance with section 705(d) of
the Act, we will notify the ITC of our
determination. In addition, we are
making available to the ITC all non–
privileged and non–proprietary
information related to this investigation.
615.92%
37.22% We will allow the ITC access to all
privileged and business proprietary
Because we preliminarily determined information in our files, provided the
ITC confirms that it will not disclose
that critical circumstances exist for
such information, either publicly or
entries of CWP manufactured/exported
under an APO, without the written
by Kingland, Shuangjie and ‘‘all other’’
Chinese manufacturers/exporters and
consent of the Assistant Secretary for
pursuant to sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) Import Administration.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31969
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final
negative injury determination, this
notice will serve as the only reminder
to parties subject to an administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
This determination is published
pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: May 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments and Issues in the
Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: The Department’s
Authority to Apply the Countervailing
Duty Law to China
Comment 2: Subsidies Prior to China’s
Accession to the World Trade
Organization
Comment 3: Adverse Facts Available
(‘‘AFA’’)
Comment 4: Attribution of Subsidies
Received by Affiliates of Zhejiang
Kingland Pipeline and Technologies
Co., Ltd.
Comment 5: Scope of the Investigation
Comment 6: Sales Denominator for
Weifang East Steel Pipe Company Ltd.
Comment 7: Provision of Hot–rolled
Steel for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration
Comment 8: Government Policy
Lending
Comment 9: Provision of Electricity for
Less Than Adequate Remuneration
Comment 10: Critical Circumstances on
an Importer Specific Basis
Comment 11: Base and Comparison
Period for Critical Circumstances
Comment 12: Kingland Export Subsidy
and Finding of Critical Circumstances
Comment 13: East Pipe Debt
Forgiveness
Comment 14: Discount Rate
Comment 15: Programs Included in
AFA Rate for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel
Pipe Co., Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
31970
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 109 / Thursday, June 5, 2008 / Notices
Comment 16: Double Remedy
[FR Doc. E8–12606 Filed 6–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–910
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from
the People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) has determined that
circular welded carbon quality steel
pipe (‘‘CWP’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or
is likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The
final dumping margins for this
investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Martin or Maisha Cryor, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3936 or (202) 482–
5831, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Case History
yshivers on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
On January 15, 2008, the Department
published in the Federal Register its
preliminary determination that CWP
from PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold
in the United States at LTFV, as
provided in the Act. See Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement
of Final Determination, 73 FR 2445,
2451 (January 15, 2008) (‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’). For the Preliminary
Determination, the Department
calculated a zero percent dumping
margin for Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yulong’’). On March 12,
2008, Petitioners,1 mandatory
1 Petitioners in this investigation are 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jun 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
respondent Yulong, separate rate
applicants Weifang East Steel Pipe Co.,
Ltd., Tianjin Baloai International Trade
Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang Zhongqing
Import and Export Co., Ltd., and
Shandong Fubo Group Co. (collectively,
‘‘Weifang East Pipe’’), and two U.S.
importers of subject merchandise, SeAH
Steel America, Ltd. (‘‘SeAH’’) and
Western International Forest Products,
LLC (‘‘Western’’), filed case briefs
pursuant to the Preliminary
Determination.2 On March 20, 2008,
Petitioners, Yulong, and one U.S.
importer, MAN Ferrostaal Inc.,
Commercial Metals Company, and QT
Trading LP (collectively, ‘‘MAN
Ferrostaal’’), filed rebuttal briefs.3 On
March 24, 2008, the Department held a
public hearing. Subsequent to the
submission of briefs and the hearing, the
Department received an allegation that a
PRC pipe company involved in the
investigation submitted falsified
documents to the Department.
Following the Department’s request for
comments on this allegation, on April 7,
2008, Yulong withdrew from the
investigation and stated that it did not
contest the allegation. See Amended
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China, 73 FR
22130, 22131 (April 24, 2008)
(‘‘Amended Preliminary
Determination’’) In light of Yulong’s
withdrawal from the investigation, on
April 24, 2008, the Department
published its Amended Preliminary
Determination, in which the Department
applied total adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’) to Yulong and denied Yulong
a separate rate, treating it as part of the
PRC–wide entity. In addition, the
Department assigned a new rate to the
PRC–wide entity and provided parties
with the opportunity to submit a second
set of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On
April 28, 2008, Weifang East Pipe
submitted a case brief pursuant to the
2 Petitioners’ March 12, 2008, case brief is
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’ March
Case Brief.’’ The Yulong March 12, 2008, case brief
is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Yulong March Case
Brief.’’ The Weifang East Pipe March 12, 2008, case
brief is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Weifang East
Pipe March Case Brief.’’ The SeAH March 12, 2008,
case brief is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘SeAH
March Case Brief.’’ The Western March 12, 2008,
case brief is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Western
March Case Brief.’’
3 Petitioners’ March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’ March
Rebuttal Brief.’’ The Yulong March 20, 2008,
rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Yulong March Rebuttal Brief.’’ The MAN
Ferrostaal March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘MAN Ferrostaal
March Rebuttal Brief.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Amended Preliminary Determination.4
On April 30, 2008, Petitioners submitted
a rebuttal brief in response to Weifang
East Pipe’s April Case Brief.5
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by the parties to this
investigation are addressed in the
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice, which is
hereby adopted by this notice in its
entirety (‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’). A list of the issues
which parties raised and to which we
respond in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice
as an Appendix. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce
Building, Room 1117, and is accessible
on the Web at https://www.trade.gov/ia.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the memorandum are identical in
content.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
October 1, 2006, through March 31,
2007.
Changes Since the Amended
Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made no changes in
our margin calculations since the
Department’s Amended Preliminary
Determination.
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).
4 The Weifang East Pipe April 28, 2008, case brief
is hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Weifang East Pipe
April Case Brief.’’
5 Petitioners’ April 30, 2008, rebuttal brief is
hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’ April
Rebuttal Brief.’’
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 109 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31966-31970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12606]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-911]
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') has determined
that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and
exporters of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (``CWP'') from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). For information on the
estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section, below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, Damian Felton or Salim
Bhabhrawala, 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) 482-0189, (202) 482-0133 or (202) 482-1784 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petitioner
The Petitioners in this investigation are the Ad Hoc Coalition for
Fair Pipe Imports from the People's Republic of China and the United
States Steel Workers (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of
investigation, is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.
Case History
The following events have occurred since the announcement of the
preliminary determination published in the Federal Register on November
13, 2007. See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination; Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances; and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 72 FR 63875 (November 13,
2007) (``Preliminary Determination'').
On November 13, 2007, the Department issued questionnaires to
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (``East Pipe''); Zhejiang Kingland
Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., Kingland Group Co., Ltd., Beijing
Kingland Century Technologies Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline
Industry Co., Ltd., and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ``Kingland'') and, the Government of the People's
Republic of China (``GOC'') regarding new subsidy allegations made by
petitioners on October 3, 2007. We received responses to these
questionnaires from Kingland on November 22, 2007, and from the GOC and
East Pipe on December 5, 2007.
We issued supplemental questionnaires to East Pipe and Kingland on
November 16, 2007, and to the GOC on November 19, 2007. We received
responses to these questionnaires from Kingland on December 4, 2007,
from East Pipe on December 12, 2007, and from the GOC on December 17,
2007. We issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Kingland on
December 14, 2007, and East Pipe on December 17, 2007. We received
responses to these questionnaires from Kingland and East Pipe on
December 27, 2007.
The GOC, East Pipe, Kingland, Petitioners, and interested parties
also submitted factual information, comments, and arguments at numerous
instances prior to the final determination based on various deadlines
for submissions of factual information and/or arguments established by
the Department subsequent to the Preliminary Determination.
From January 14 through January 23, 2008, we conducted verification
of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, Kingland, and East
Pipe.
On April 9, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary determination
regarding the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration and
new subsidy allegations. We addressed our preliminary findings in an
April 9, 2008, memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, entitled Post-Preliminary Findings for the
Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration and New Subsidy
Allegations, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'').
We received case briefs from the GOC, East Pipe, Kingland,
Petitioners, certain members of the Specialty Steel Industry of North
America (``SSINA''), United States Steel Corporation (``US Steel''),
Western International Forest Products, LLC (``Western''), MAN
Ferrostaal, Inc., Commercial Metals Company and QT Trading LP
(collectively, ``MAN Ferrostaal''), and SeAH Steel America (``SSA'') on
April 17, 2008. The same parties submitted rebuttal briefs on April 22
and April 29, 2008. We held a hearing for this investigation on May 5,
2008.
Scope of the 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.
Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and
Materials (``ASTM'') specifications, but
[[Page 31967]]
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 a standard and/
or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the
American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is also
covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical
description set forth above and also has one or more of the following
characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches
(50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface
finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. (The term
``painted'' does not include coatings to inhibit rust in transit, such
as varnish, but includes coatings such as polyester.)
The scope of this investigation 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) finished scaffolding; (e) tube and pipe hollows for
redrawing; (f) oil country tubular goods produced to API
specifications; and (g) line pipe produced to only API specifications.
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, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.10.00,
7306.50.50.50, 7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50,
7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. However, the product description, and
not the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the
United States falls within the scope of the investigation.
Scope Comments
The scope listed above has changed from the Preliminary
Determination.
On December 19, 2007, Petitioners requested that the Department
clarify the scope of this investigation and the companion antidumping
duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. We have analyzed the request
and comments of the interested parties regarding the scope of this
investigation. Our position on these comments is discussed in the final
determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP
from the PRC.
Injury Test
Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the
Act), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject
merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury
to a U.S. industry. On August 3, 2007, the ITC published its
preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with
material injury by reason of imports from China of circular welded
carbon-quality steel pipe. 72 FR 43295.
Critical Circumstances
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that
critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of circular welded
pipe from certain PRC exporters, pursuant to section 703(e) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.206. Preliminary Determination, 72 FR at 63879-80. The
Department continues to find critical circumstances in this final
determination. For further discussion on this issue, see ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination,'' from Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David
M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May
29, 2008 (``Decision Memorandum'') at Comments 10, 11, and 12, and
Memorandum to the File Re ``Critical Circumstances Analysis for
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. Import Shipment
Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. and
``All Others'' (May 29, 2008) (``Final Critical Circumstances
Memorandum'') (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU).
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an Appendix
is a list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have
responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on
file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Use of Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other
person: (A) withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1)
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous
[[Page 31968]]
administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, attached to H.R. Rep.
No. 103-316, Vol. I at 870 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773,
4163 (``SAA''). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the
Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the
best alternative information. See SAA at 869.
The Department has concluded that it is appropriate to base the
final determination for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd.
(``Shuangjie'') on facts otherwise available. Shuangjie failed to
respond at all to the Department's October 24, 2007, request for
shipment data relating to the allegation of critical circumstances, did
not respond to the Department's October 25, 2007, supplemental
questionnaire, and finally, on October 31, 2007, withdrew all of its
proprietary information from the record.
Consequently, the use of facts otherwise available is warranted
under section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
In selecting from among the facts available, the Department has
determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act because, in addition to not fully responding to all
of our requests for information, Shuangjie withdrew from all
participation in the investigation and did not provide the Department
with the opportunity to verify the information it did submit. Thus,
Shuangjie failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability,
and our final determination is based on total AFA.
We have also determined that it is appropriate to apply facts
available with respect to certain information that the GOC failed to
provide, or information that could not be verified. Specifically,
despite the Department's requests to submit sub-national government
plans relating to the steel industry in the PRC, the GOC stated that
none existed. However, at verification the Department discovered the
existence of the Shandong Provincial Steel Plan. Additionally, the
Department was unable to verify information regarding the level of
state ownership in the HRS industry in the PRC because the GOC
misrepresented the source of the data. In both instances, the GOC
failed to act to the best of its ability and, consequently, application
of AFA is warranted.
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to
select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the
proceeding. See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the
Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of Programs''
& Comment 1.
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February
23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it
had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate
balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced
current information showing the margin to be less.'' See Rhone Poulenc,
Inc. v. United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, for every program based on the provision of goods at
less than adequate remuneration, the Department used the Kingland rate
for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate
remuneration. For value added tax (``VAT'') programs, we are unable to
utilize company-specific rates from this proceeding because neither
respondent received any countervailable subsidies from these subsidy
programs. Therefore, for VAT programs we are also applying the highest
subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance
is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than
adequate remuneration.
Similarly, for the grant programs, we are not relying on the
highest calculated final rate because it is de minimis. Instead, we are
applying the highest calculated final subsidy rate, which in this
instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for
less than adequate remuneration.
Finally, for the six alleged income tax programs pertaining to
either the reduction of the income tax rates or exemption from income
tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Shuangjie paid no income
tax during the period of investigation (i.e., calendar year 2006). The
standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent,
plus a 3 percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest
possible benefit for these six income tax rate programs is 33 percent.
We are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis (i.e., the
six programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). This 33 percent
AFA rate does not apply to income tax deduction or credit programs. For
income tax deduction or credit programs, we are applying the highest
subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance
is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled-steel at less than
adequate remuneration.
In a change from the Preliminary Determination, we are not
assigning rates for alleged provincial subsidy programs where record
evidence shows that Tianjin Shuangjie was not located in those
provinces. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 15.
We do not need to corroborate these rates because they are not
considered secondary information as they are based on information
obtained in the course of this investigation, pursuant to section
776(c) of the Act. See also SAA at 870.
Regarding the application of adverse facts available to the GOC, we
have treated companies as state-owned
[[Page 31969]]
where the GOC did not provide information regarding the companies'
ownership. Also, where the provincial steel plan was not provided, we
are finding that policy lending existed in that province. See Decision
Memorandum at ``Analysis of Programs;'' Comment 3; and Comment 8.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have
calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation,
East Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act
states that for companies not investigated, we will determine an ``all
others'' rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy
rates established for exporters and producers individually
investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy
rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776. As
Shuangjie's rate was calculated under section 776 of the Act, it is not
included in the ``all others'' rate.
Nothwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the
Act, we have not calculated the ``all others'' rate by weight averaging
the rates of East Pipe and Kingland, because doing so risks disclosure
of proprietary information. Therefore, we have calculated a simple
average of the two responding firms' rates. Since there were either no
or de minimis countervailable export subsidies for Kingland and East
Pipe and because the ``all others'' rate is a simple average based on
the individually investigated exporters and producers, the ``all
others'' rate does not include export subsidies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Subsidy
Exporter/Manufacturer Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd........................ 29.57[percnt]
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., 44.86 [percnt]
and affiliated companies...............................
Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Tianjin 615.92[percnt]
Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Wa Song
Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Shuanglian
Galvanizing Products Co., Ltd..........................
All Others.............................................. 37.22[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we preliminarily determined that critical circumstances
exist for entries of CWP manufactured/exported by Kingland, Shuangjie
and ``all other'' Chinese manufacturers/exporters and pursuant to
sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we
instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend
liquidation of entries of CWP manufactured/exported by Kingland,
Shuangjie and ``all other'' Chinese exports of CWP which were entered
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 13,
2007, and to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated
entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or
after August 15, 2007 (90 days before the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination. Also, in accordance with section 703(d) of
the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation
for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered on or
after March 12, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of
entries made from August 15, 2007, through March 12, 2008. Preliminary
Determination, 72 FR at 6386.
For entries of CWP manufactured/exported by East Pipe, we did not
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation because we preliminarily determined
that East Pipe did not receive any countervailable subsidies.
We will issue a countervailing duty order and reinstate the
suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act (for all
companies including East Pipe) if the International Trade Commission
(``ITC'') issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will
require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such
entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC
determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not
exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties
deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of
liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties
subject to an administrative protective order (``APO'') of their
responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is
subject to sanction.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: May 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: The Department's Authority to Apply the Countervailing Duty
Law to China
Comment 2: Subsidies Prior to China's Accession to the World Trade
Organization
Comment 3: Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')
Comment 4: Attribution of Subsidies Received by Affiliates of Zhejiang
Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd.
Comment 5: Scope of the Investigation
Comment 6: Sales Denominator for Weifang East Steel Pipe Company Ltd.
Comment 7: Provision of Hot-rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration
Comment 8: Government Policy Lending
Comment 9: Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
Comment 10: Critical Circumstances on an Importer Specific Basis
Comment 11: Base and Comparison Period for Critical Circumstances
Comment 12: Kingland Export Subsidy and Finding of Critical
Circumstances
Comment 13: East Pipe Debt Forgiveness
Comment 14: Discount Rate
Comment 15: Programs Included in AFA Rate for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel
Pipe Co., Ltd.
[[Page 31970]]
Comment 16: Double Remedy
[FR Doc. E8-12606 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
