Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 4913-4916 [E9-1827]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
4913
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 17
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
The following notice that was
published in the Federal Register on
Friday, January 23, 2009 (Volume 74,
No. 14, page 4134) contained an error in
the OMB Control Number. The correct
OMB Control Number should be 0579–
0281, this number replaces 0579–New
that was originally published in the
notice.
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request; Correction
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and investigations,
committee meetings, agency decisions and
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are
examples of documents appearing in this
section.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
January 23, 2009.
The Department of Agriculture has
submitted the following information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Comments
regarding (a) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of burden including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology should be addressed to: Desk
Officer for Agriculture, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB),
OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV or
fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental
Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail
Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250–
7602. Comments regarding these
information collections are best assured
of having their full effect if received
within 30 days of this notification.
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling (202) 720–8958.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless the collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control
number and the agency informs
potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
Title: Treatment of Fruits and
Vegetables.
OMB Control Number: 0579–0281.
Ruth Brown,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–1812 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–930
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) has determined that
circular welded austenitic stainless
pressure pipe 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 733 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 of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith;
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3518
and (202) 482–5193, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
On September 5, 2008, the
Department published in the Federal
Register its preliminary determination
that circular welded austenitic stainless
pressure pipe from the PRC is being, or
is likely to be, sold in the United States
at LTFV, as provided in the Act. See
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 73 FR 51788 (September
5, 2008) (Preliminary Determination).
For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department calculated a 22.03 percent
dumping margin for mandatory
respondent Winner Machinery
Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Winner) and
assigned that dumping margin to the
PRC–wide entity and Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–
Tech Metals Co., Ltd. (Jiuli), a separate
rate applicant.
The Department began its verification
of Winner’s information on September
22, 2008. The verification was
scheduled for September 22, 2008
through September 26, 2008. On
September 25, 2008, Winner terminated
verification, requested that the verifiers
not take copies of any of the documents
that were reviewed or presented at
verification, and submitted a letter to
the Department stating that Winner
‘‘hereby withdraws from this
antidumping investigation and does not
wish to further participate.’’ See
Winner’s September 25, 2008 letter to
the Department. The Department
documented the events that occurred at
verification in a memorandum to the file
dated October 3, 2008.
Petitioners1 and Winner submitted
case briefs on October 22, 2008, and
rebuttal briefs on October 27, 2008.
Winner filed submissions containing
new factual information on October 16,
2008, November 28, 2008, and
December 2, 2008. The Department
rejected Winner’s November 28, 2008,
and December 2, 2008 submissions on
December 2, 2008 and December 4,
2008, respectively, as untimely filed.
1 Petitioners in this investigation are Bristol
Metals, L.P., Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia
USA, Inc., Outokumpu Stainless Pipe Inc., and the
United Steel Workers of America (collectively,
Petitioners).
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4914
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is
July 1, 2007, through December 31,
2007. This period comprises the two
most recently completed fiscal quarters
as of the month preceding the month in
which the petition was filed (i.e.,
January 2008). See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is circular welded
austenitic stainless pressure pipe not
greater than 14 inches in outside
diameter. This merchandise includes,
but is not limited to, the American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) A–312 or ASTM A–778
specifications, or comparable domestic
or foreign specifications. ASTM A–358
products are only included when they
are produced to meet ASTM A–312 or
ASTM A–778 specifications, or
comparable domestic or foreign
specifications. Excluded from the scope
are: (1) welded stainless mechanical
tubing, meeting ASTM A–554 or
comparable domestic or foreign
specifications; (2) boiler, heat
exchanger, superheater, refining
furnace, feedwater heater, and
condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A–
249, ASTM A–688 or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications; and
(3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM
A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally
classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005;
7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062,
7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). They may also
enter under HTSUS subheadings
7306.40.1010; 7306.40.1015;
7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044,
7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes
only, the written description of the
scope of this investigation is dispositive.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Changes since the Preliminary
Determination
We have made the following changes
to our analysis and the dumping
margins assigned in the Preliminary
Determination:
1. We considered Winner to be part of
the PRC–wide entity, and revised
the dumping margin that was
assigned to the PRC–wide entity as
total adverse facts available (AFA).
2. We assigned Jiuli a separate rate
based on an average of the dumping
margins used in the initiation of
this investigation.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
For a detailed discussion of the
dumping margin assigned to the PRC–
wide entity as AFA, see ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Circular Welded
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from
the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
January 21, 2009 (Decision
Memorandum) which is hereby adopted
by this notice. For a detailed discussion
of Jiuli’s dumping margin, see the
‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
proceeding, and to which we have
responded, are addressed in the
Decision Memorandum. Appendix I to
this notice contains a list of the issues
that are addressed in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum. Parties can find
a complete discussion of the issues and
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of
the main Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy
and electronic version are identical in
content.
Non–Market Economy Treatment
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department considered the PRC to be a
non–market economy (NME) country.
See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at
51789. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a country is an NME
country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of 2001–2002
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of 2001–2002 Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18,
2003). No party has commented on the
Department’s classification of the PRC
as an NME country. Therefore, for the
final determination, we continue to
consider the PRC to be an NME country.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to an
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR
351.107(d).
In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that Jiuli and Winner
demonstrated their eligibility for
separate–rate status. See Preliminary
Determination, 73 FR at 51792. Since
the publication of the Preliminary
Determination, no parties commented
on the separate rate determinations. We
continue to find that the evidence
placed on the record of this
investigation by Jiuli demonstrates both
a de jure and de facto absence of
government control with respect to its
exports of the merchandise under
investigation. Thus, we continue to find
that Jiuli is eligible for separate–rate
status. However, as explained below, we
have determined that it is appropriate to
apply total AFA to Winner and deny the
company a separate rate.
Normally the dumping margin for
separate rate companies is determined
based on the estimated weighted–
average dumping margins established
for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding de
minimis margins or margins based
entirely on AFA. See section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In the
Preliminary Determination we assigned
Jiuli the dumping margin established for
Winner, i.e., 22.03 percent. See
Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at
51792 and 51795. Since Winner is no
longer receiving a separate rate, this
methodology is not appropriate. In cases
where the estimated weighted–average
dumping margins for all individually
investigated respondents are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on AFA, the
Department may use any reasonable
method to assign a rate to the separate
rate companies. See section 735(c)(5)(B)
of the Act. In this case, where there are
no mandatory respondents receiving a
calculated rate, we find that applying
the simple average of the initiation rates
to Jiuli is both reasonable and reliable
for purposes of establishing a separate
rate. See Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sodium
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
Hexametaphosphate From the People’s
Republic of China, 73 FR 6479
(February 4, 2008) and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2. Therefore,
the Department will assign a separate
rate to Jiuli using the average of the
initiation margins, pursuant to its
practice.
The average initiation margin
assigned to Jiuli is based on secondary
information. According to section 776
(c) of the Act, when the Department
relies on secondary information, it shall,
to the extent practicable, corroborate
that information. During our pre–
initiation analysis of the petition, we
examined the information used in the
petition as the basis of export price and
normal value (NV) and, where
appropriate, revised the calculations
used to derive the petition dumping
margins in determining the initiation
dumping margins. Also, during our pre–
initiation analysis, we examined
information from various independent
sources provided either in the petition
or, based on our requests, in
supplements to the petition, which
corroborated various elements of the
export price and NV information. For
this final determination, we compared
the average of the initiation margins to
Winner’s highest CONNUM–specific
margin and found that the average of the
initiation margins does not exceed this
margin. No other information was
available for corroboration purposes.
Based on the foregoing, we have
concluded that the average of the
initiation dumping margins is reliable
and has probative value and, therefore,
we consider this average dumping
margin to be corroborated, to the extent
practicable.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party or any other
person (A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782,
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under this title, or (D) provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in section 782(i),
the administering authority shall,
subject to section 782(d), use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination. Because
Winner withdrew from this proceeding
during verification, we determine that
the use of facts otherwise available is
warranted with respect to Winner. See
the Decision Memorandum at Comment
1.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, if the Department finds that an
interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information,’’
the Department may draw an inference
that is adverse to the interests of that
party in selecting information from the
petition, the final determination from
the investigation, a previous
administrative review, or any
information placed on the record. The
Statement of Administrative Action
(SAA) accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–
316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870, reflects the
Department’s practice that it may
employ an adverse inference ‘‘to ensure
that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
fully.’’ It also instructs the Department
to consider, in employing adverse
inferences, ‘‘the extent to which a party
may benefit from its own lack of
cooperation.’’ Id.
By withdrawing from verification,
Winner has failed to cooperate to the
best of its ability. Therefore, we find it
appropriate to use an inference that is
adverse to Winner’s interest in selecting
from among facts otherwise available.
By doing so, we ensure that Winner will
not obtain a more favorable rate by
failing to cooperate. For a complete
discussion of our analysis, see the
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Moreover, because Winner withdrew
from verification and prevented the
Department from verifying its responses
with regard to separate rate status, the
Department has no basis upon which to
grant Winner a separate rate. Thus,
although Winner remains a mandatory
respondent, the Department, as AFA, is
considering Winner to be part of the
PRC–wide entity.
The PRC–Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department found that certain
companies did not respond to our
requests for information. See
Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at
51788. We treated these PRC producers/
exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity
because they did not demonstrate that
they operate free of government control
over their export activities. Id. No
additional information was placed on
the record with respect to any of these
companies after the Preliminary
Determination. Moreover, for the
reasons noted above, we also consider
Winner to be part of the PRC–wide
entity.
As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of
the Act provides that, if an interested
party or any other person withholds
information that has been requested by
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4915
the administering authority,
significantly impedes a proceeding
under this title, or provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in section 782(i),
the administering authority shall,
subject to section 782(d), use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination. Since
companies within the PRC–wide entity
withheld information requested by the
Department, and Winner, which is part
of the PRC–wide entity, did not allow
its information to be verified, pursuant
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of
the Act, we determine, as in the
Preliminary Determination, that the use
of facts otherwise available is
appropriate to determine the PRC–wide
rate.
As stated above, section 776(b) of the
Act provides that, in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available, the
Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for
information. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–
Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel Products
From the Russian Federation, 65 FR
5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also
SAA at 870 (1994). We determine that,
because the PRC–wide entity did not
respond to our requests for information,
and Winner prevented the Department
from verifying its information, the PRC–
wide entity has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the
Department finds that, in selecting a
dumping margin from among the facts
otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate for the PRC–
wide entity.
In this final determination, we have
assigned to the PRC–wide entity the
highest CONNUM–specific calculated
dumping margin, i.e., 55.21 percent. See
Decision Memorandum. No
corroboration of this rate is necessary
because we are relying on information
obtained in the course of this
investigation, rather than secondary
information.
Since we begin with the presumption
that all companies within an NME
country are subject to government
control, and because only Jiuli has
overcome that presumption, we are
applying the single antidumping rate
(i.e., the PRC–wide entity rate)
identified above to all entries of subject
merchandise, except for entries from
Jiuli. Other than Jiuli, none of the other
exporters of subject merchandise from
the PRC demonstrated entitlement to a
separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo
From the People’s Republic of China:
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4916
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706
(May 3, 2000).
Combination Rates
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
In Circular Welded Austenitic
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR
10221 (February 26, 2008) (Initiation
Notice), the Department stated that it
would calculate combination rates for
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Initiation Notice. This change in
practice is described in Policy Bulletin
05.1, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Policy Bulletin 05.1, states:
{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
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 Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate
Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations Involving Non–Market
Economy Countries.’’
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) to continue to suspend
liquidation of all entries of circular
welded austenitic stainless pressure
pipe from the PRC, as described in the
‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after September
5, 2008, the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP
to require a cash deposit or the posting
of a bond equal to the weighted–average
dumping margin amount by which the
NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1)
The rate for the exporter/producer
combination listed in the chart above
will be the rate we have determined in
this final determination; (2) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide
entity rate; and (3) for all non–PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash–deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in
effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of
our final determination of sales at LTFV.
As our final determination is
affirmative, in accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the
ITC will determine whether the
domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation of the subject merchandise.
If the ITC determines that material
injury or threat of material injury does
Final Determination Margins
not exist, the proceeding will be
We determine that the following
terminated and all securities posted will
percentage dumping margins exist for
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC
the POI:
determines that such injury does exist,
the Department will issue an
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter
antidumping duty order directing CBP
(Percent)
to assess, upon further instruction by
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–Tech Metals
the Department, antidumping duties on
Co., Ltd. Produced by:
all imports of the subject merchandise
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–Tech Metals
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
Co., Ltd. ..................................
10.53%
for consumption on or after the effective
PRC–Wide Rate .........................
55.21%
date of the suspension of liquidation.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder
to the parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 21, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
Appendix I
List of Issues
Comment 1: Whether, as Adverse Facts
Available for the PRC–Wide Entity, the
Department Should Use the Petition,
Initiation, or Preliminary Determination
Margins, and Whether Those Margins
Should be Adjusted Using Thai, Instead
of Indian, Surrogate Values
[FR Doc. E9–1827 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Wooden Bedroom Furniture
From the People’s Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 20, 2008, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published in the
Federal Register the final results of the
second administrative review and
concurrent new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR
49162 (August 20, 2008) (‘‘Final
Results’’) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum (August 8, 2007)
(‘‘Issues and Decision Memo’’). The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) covered
January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2006. We are amending our Final
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4913-4916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1827]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-930
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined
that circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe 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 733 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 of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith;
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518 and (202) 482-5193,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 5, 2008, the Department published in the Federal
Register its preliminary determination that circular welded austenitic
stainless pressure pipe from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold
in the United States at LTFV, as provided in the Act. See Circular
Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 51788 (September 5, 2008)
(Preliminary Determination). For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department calculated a 22.03 percent dumping margin for mandatory
respondent Winner Machinery Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Winner) and assigned
that dumping margin to the PRC-wide entity and Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech
Metals Co., Ltd. (Jiuli), a separate rate applicant.
The Department began its verification of Winner's information on
September 22, 2008. The verification was scheduled for September 22,
2008 through September 26, 2008. On September 25, 2008, Winner
terminated verification, requested that the verifiers not take copies
of any of the documents that were reviewed or presented at
verification, and submitted a letter to the Department stating that
Winner ``hereby withdraws from this antidumping investigation and does
not wish to further participate.'' See Winner's September 25, 2008
letter to the Department. The Department documented the events that
occurred at verification in a memorandum to the file dated October 3,
2008.
Petitioners\1\ and Winner submitted case briefs on October 22,
2008, and rebuttal briefs on October 27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners in this investigation are Bristol Metals, L.P.,
Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia USA, Inc., Outokumpu Stainless
Pipe Inc., and the United Steel Workers of America (collectively,
Petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winner filed submissions containing new factual information on
October 16, 2008, November 28, 2008, and December 2, 2008. The
Department rejected Winner's November 28, 2008, and December 2, 2008
submissions on December 2, 2008 and December 4, 2008, respectively, as
untimely filed.
[[Page 4914]]
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2007, through December
31, 2007. This period comprises the two most recently completed fiscal
quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the petition was
filed (i.e., January 2008). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded
austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in
outside diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-312 or ASTM A-778
specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM
A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-
312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign
specifications. Excluded from the scope are: (1) welded stainless
mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign
specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining
furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249,
ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3)
specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings
7306.40.5005; 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and
7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010;
7306.40.1015; 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and
7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Changes since the Preliminary Determination
We have made the following changes to our analysis and the dumping
margins assigned in the Preliminary Determination:
1. We considered Winner to be part of the PRC-wide entity, and
revised the dumping margin that was assigned to the PRC-wide entity as
total adverse facts available (AFA).
2. We assigned Jiuli a separate rate based on an average of the
dumping margins used in the initiation of this investigation.
For a detailed discussion of the dumping margin assigned to the
PRC-wide entity as AFA, see ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular
Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated January 21, 2009 (Decision Memorandum) which is hereby
adopted by this notice. For a detailed discussion of Jiuli's dumping
margin, see the ``Separate Rates'' section below.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this proceeding, and to which we have responded, are addressed in the
Decision Memorandum. Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the
issues that are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues and corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Web at https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy
and electronic version are identical in content.
Non-Market Economy Treatment
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department considered the PRC
to be a non-market economy (NME) country. See Preliminary
Determination, 73 FR at 51789. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i)
of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME country shall
remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission
of Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). No party has commented on
the Department's classification of the PRC as an NME country.
Therefore, for the final determination, we continue to consider the PRC
to be an NME country.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign
all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified
by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May
2, 1994), and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Jiuli and Winner
demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. See
Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 51792. Since the publication of the
Preliminary Determination, no parties commented on the separate rate
determinations. We continue to find that the evidence placed on the
record of this investigation by Jiuli demonstrates both a de jure and
de facto absence of government control with respect to its exports of
the merchandise under investigation. Thus, we continue to find that
Jiuli is eligible for separate-rate status. However, as explained
below, we have determined that it is appropriate to apply total AFA to
Winner and deny the company a separate rate.
Normally the dumping margin for separate rate companies is
determined based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins
established for exporters and producers individually investigated,
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA. See
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In the Preliminary Determination we
assigned Jiuli the dumping margin established for Winner, i.e., 22.03
percent. See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 51792 and 51795. Since
Winner is no longer receiving a separate rate, this methodology is not
appropriate. In cases where the estimated weighted-average dumping
margins for all individually investigated respondents are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on AFA, the Department may use any
reasonable method to assign a rate to the separate rate companies. See
section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. In this case, where there are no
mandatory respondents receiving a calculated rate, we find that
applying the simple average of the initiation rates to Jiuli is both
reasonable and reliable for purposes of establishing a separate rate.
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium
[[Page 4915]]
Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 6479
(February 4, 2008) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2. Therefore, the Department will assign a separate rate to
Jiuli using the average of the initiation margins, pursuant to its
practice.
The average initiation margin assigned to Jiuli is based on
secondary information. According to section 776 (c) of the Act, when
the Department relies on secondary information, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information. During our pre-initiation
analysis of the petition, we examined the information used in the
petition as the basis of export price and normal value (NV) and, where
appropriate, revised the calculations used to derive the petition
dumping margins in determining the initiation dumping margins. Also,
during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from
various independent sources provided either in the petition or, based
on our requests, in supplements to the petition, which corroborated
various elements of the export price and NV information. For this final
determination, we compared the average of the initiation margins to
Winner's highest CONNUM-specific margin and found that the average of
the initiation margins does not exceed this margin. No other
information was available for corroboration purposes. Based on the
foregoing, we have concluded that the average of the initiation dumping
margins is reliable and has probative value and, therefore, we consider
this average dumping margin to be corroborated, to the extent
practicable.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested
by the administering authority, (B) fails to provide such information
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section
782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D)
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination. Because Winner withdrew from this proceeding
during verification, we determine that the use of facts otherwise
available is warranted with respect to Winner. See the Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the
Department may draw an inference that is adverse to the interests of
that party in selecting information from the petition, the final
determination from the investigation, a previous administrative review,
or any information placed on the record. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 870, reflects the Department's
practice that it may employ an adverse inference ``to ensure that the
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate
fully.'' It also instructs the Department to consider, in employing
adverse inferences, ``the extent to which a party may benefit from its
own lack of cooperation.'' Id.
By withdrawing from verification, Winner has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, we find it appropriate to use an
inference that is adverse to Winner's interest in selecting from among
facts otherwise available. By doing so, we ensure that Winner will not
obtain a more favorable rate by failing to cooperate. For a complete
discussion of our analysis, see the Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Moreover, because Winner withdrew from verification and prevented
the Department from verifying its responses with regard to separate
rate status, the Department has no basis upon which to grant Winner a
separate rate. Thus, although Winner remains a mandatory respondent,
the Department, as AFA, is considering Winner to be part of the PRC-
wide entity.
The PRC-Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain
companies did not respond to our requests for information. See
Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 51788. We treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their
export activities. Id. No additional information was placed on the
record with respect to any of these companies after the Preliminary
Determination. Moreover, for the reasons noted above, we also consider
Winner to be part of the PRC-wide entity.
As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an
interested party or any other person withholds information that has
been requested by the administering authority, significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the
administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Since
companies within the PRC-wide entity withheld information requested by
the Department, and Winner, which is part of the PRC-wide entity, did
not allow its information to be verified, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the
Preliminary Determination, that the use of facts otherwise available is
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.
As stated above, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may
employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel
Products From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4,
2000). See also SAA at 870 (1994). We determine that, because the PRC-
wide entity did not respond to our requests for information, and Winner
prevented the Department from verifying its information, the PRC-wide
entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore,
the Department finds that, in selecting a dumping margin from among the
facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the
PRC-wide entity.
In this final determination, we have assigned to the PRC-wide
entity the highest CONNUM-specific calculated dumping margin, i.e.,
55.21 percent. See Decision Memorandum. No corroboration of this rate
is necessary because we are relying on information obtained in the
course of this investigation, rather than secondary information.
Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an
NME country are subject to government control, and because only Jiuli
has overcome that presumption, we are applying the single antidumping
rate (i.e., the PRC-wide entity rate) identified above to all entries
of subject merchandise, except for entries from Jiuli. Other than
Jiuli, none of the other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC
demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic
Indigo From the People's Republic of China:
[[Page 4916]]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR
25706 (May 3, 2000).
Combination Rates
In Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 10221 (February 26, 2008) (Initiation Notice), the
Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. See Initiation Notice. This change in practice is
described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Policy Bulletin 05.1, states:
{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 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 Policy Bulletin 05.1, ``Separate Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market
Economy Countries.''
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following percentage dumping margins exist
for the POI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. Produced by: 10.53[perc
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd..................... nt]
PRC-Wide Rate............................................... 55.21[perc
nt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to
suspend liquidation of all entries of circular welded austenitic
stainless pressure pipe from the PRC, as described in the ``Scope of
Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after September 5, 2008, the date of publication of
the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
weighted-average dumping margin amount by which the NV exceeds U.S.
price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combination
listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this
final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be
the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 21, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix I
List of Issues
Comment 1: Whether, as Adverse Facts Available for the PRC-Wide Entity,
the Department Should Use the Petition, Initiation, or Preliminary
Determination Margins, and Whether Those Margins Should be Adjusted
Using Thai, Instead of Indian, Surrogate Values
[FR Doc. E9-1827 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
