Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 20671-20678 [E9-10346]
Download as PDF
20671
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 74, No. 85
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
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.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
Title: Quarterly Financial Report.
Form Number(s): QFR–200(MT),
QFR–300(S), QFR–201(MG).
OMB Control Number: 0607–0432.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Burden Hours: 92,268.
Number of Respondents: 10,707.
Average Hours per Response: 2 hours
and 9 minutes.
Needs and Uses: The QFR program
has published up-to-date aggregate
statistics on the financial results and
position of U.S. corporations since 1947.
The program currently collects and
publishes financial data for
manufacturing, mining, wholesale and
retail trade corporations. The survey is
a principal economic indicator that
provides financial data essential to
calculation of key U.S. government
measures of national economic
performance. The importance of this
data collection is reflected by the
granting of specific authority to conduct
the program in Title 13 of the United
States Code, section 91, which requires
that financial statistics of business
operations be collected and published
quarterly. Public Law 109–79, section
91 extended the authority of the
Secretary of Commerce to conduct the
QFR program through September 30,
2015.
This request is for a revision of the
currently approved collection. The
change from the previous QFR
authorization is to collect data for
selected services industries beginning
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
with data for the third quarter of 2009.
The proposed expansion includes all 3digit industries in the Information
sector, and all 4-digit industries, with
the exception of legal services, in the
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services sector. The services sector is
the largest sector in the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), representing about 55
percent of the economy. By expanding
to selected service industries, the QFR
program can begin providing statistics
on the financial results and position for
important parts of the services sector for
which no data are currently available.
The survey forms used to conduct the
QFR are: QFR–200 (MT) Long Form
(manufacturing, mining, wholesale
trade, and retail trade); QFR–201 (MG)
Short Form (manufacturing); and a new
form, QFR–300 (S) Long Form
(services). The QFR–200 (MT) and QFR–
201 (MG) have been updated to improve
usability for respondents.
The primary purpose of the QFR is to
provide timely, accurate data on
business financial conditions for use by
Government and private-sector
organizations and individuals.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
Frequency: Quarterly.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C.,
section 91; Public Law 109–79, section
91.
OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dhynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB
Desk Officer either by fax (202–395–
7245) or e-mail (bharrisk@omb.eop.gov).
Dated: April 29, 2009.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–10249 Filed 5–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–943]
Oil Country Tubular Goods From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eugene Degnan or Paul Stolz, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0414 and (202)
482–4474, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On April 8, 2009, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received
an antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition
concerning imports of certain oil
country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
filed in proper form by Maverick Tube
Corporation, United States Steel
Corporation, TMK IPSCO, V&M Star
L.P., V&M Tubular Corporation of
America, Wheatland Tube Corp., Evraz
Rocky Mountain Steel, and United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC,
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).1 On April
17, 2009, the Department issued a
request for additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the
Petition. Based on the Department’s
request, Petitioners filed supplements to
the Petition on April 22, 2009
(‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). The
Department requested further
clarifications from Petitioners by phone
on April 23, 2009, regarding scope,
industry support and U.S. price.2 On
1 See the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant
to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
As Amended (‘‘Petition’’), filed on April 8, 2009.
2 See Memorandum to the File from Matthew
Glass, ‘‘Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties on Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods From the People’s Republic of China
(A–570–943) (C–357–819): Conference Call with
Petitioners.’’
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
20672
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Notices
April 24, 2009, Petitioners filed the
requested information, including a
revised scope.3
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of
OCTG from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value, within the meaning
of section 731 of the Act, and that such
imports materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, an industry in the
United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed this Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioners
are interested parties as defined in
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the investigation
that they are requesting the Department
to initiate (see ‘‘Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition’’
below).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are certain OCTG from the
PRC. For a full description of the scope
of the investigation, please see the
‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in
Appendix I of this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
discussed the scope with Petitioners to
ensure that it is an accurate reflection of
the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage. The Department encourages
all interested parties to submit such
comments by May 18, 2009, twenty
calendar days from the signature date of
this notice. Comments should be
addressed to Import Administration’s
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1117, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. The period of
scope consultations is intended to
provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments
and to consult with parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determinations.
3 See Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China;
Response to Department of Commerce Questions
Regarding Volume I and II of the Petitions for
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties,’’ dated April 24, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
Comments on Product Characteristics
for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires
We are requesting comments from
interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
OCTG to be reported in response to the
Department’s antidumping
questionnaires. This information will be
used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to more accurately
report the relevant factors and costs of
production, as well as to develop
appropriate product comparison
criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they feel
are relevant to the development of an
accurate listing of physical
characteristics. Specifically, they may
provide comments as to which
characteristics are appropriate to use as
(1) general product characteristics and
(2) the product comparison criteria. We
note that it is not always appropriate to
use all product characteristics as
product comparison criteria. We base
product comparison criteria on
meaningful commercial differences
among products. In other words, while
there may be some physical product
characteristics utilized by
manufacturers to describe OCTG, it may
be that only a select few product
characteristics take into account
commercially meaningful physical
characteristics. In addition, interested
parties may comment on the order in
which the physical characteristics
should be used in product matching.
Generally, the Department attempts to
list the most important physical
characteristics first and the least
important characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing and
issuing the antidumping duty
questionnaires, we must receive
comments at the above-referenced
address by May 18, 2009. Additionally,
rebuttal comments must be received by
May 25, 2009.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a Petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a Petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
Petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the Petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the Petition, as required by
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a Petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
the domestic like product (section
771(10) of the Act), they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.4
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this subtitle.’’ Thus,
the reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the Petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioners do not offer a
definition of domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that OCTG
constitute a single domestic like product
4 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492
U.S. 919 (1989).
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Notices
and we have analyzed industry support
in terms of that domestic like product.5
With regard to section 732(c)(4)(A), in
determining whether Petitioners have
standing, (i.e., those domestic workers
and producers supporting the Petition
account for: (1) At least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like
product; and (2) more than 50 percent
of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the
industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the Petition), we
considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference
to the domestic like product as defined
in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section
above. To establish industry support,
Petitioners provided their production of
the domestic like product for the year
2008, and compared this to an estimate
of production of the domestic like
product for the entire domestic
industry.6 To estimate 2008 production
of the domestic like product, the
Petitioners used an industry publication
which reports data in shipments.
Petitioners approximated domestic
production of OCTG by inflating the
volume of domestic shipments reported
by the ratio of the difference between
Petitioners’ production and shipments
in the applicable calendar year.7
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, supplemental submissions, and
other information readily available to
the Department indicates that
Petitioners have established industry
support. First, the Petition established
support from domestic producers (or
workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the
Department is not required to take
further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling).8
Second, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria
for industry support under section
732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who
support the Petitions account for at least
25 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product.9 Finally, the
5 For
a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: OCTG from the
PRC (‘‘Initiation Checklist’’) at Attachment II
(‘‘Industry Support’’), dated concurrently with this
notice and on file in the Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
6 See Volume I of the Petition at, pages 3–4 and
Exhibit I–3a.
7 See Volume I of the Petition, at page 3 and
Exhibits I–3b and I–3c, and Supplement to the
Petition, at pages 10–11 and Exhibit Supp. I–6. For
further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II.
8 See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
9 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
domestic producers (or workers) have
met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act because the domestic producers
(or workers) who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition. Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.10
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and they have
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the antidumping
investigation that they are requesting
the Department initiate.11
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share, increased import
penetration, underselling and price
depressing and suppressing effects, lost
sales and revenue, reduced production
and capacity utilization, reduced
shipments and increased inventories,
reduced employment, and an overall
decline in financial performance. We
have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material
injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that
these allegations are properly supported
by adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation.12
Critical Circumstances
Petitioners have alleged that critical
circumstances exist with regard to
imports of OCTG from the PRC, and
have supported their allegations with
the following information.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act states
that, if a Petitioner alleges critical
circumstances, the Department will find
that such circumstances exist, at any
10 See
Id.
Id.
12 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III
(Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation for the Petition).
11 See
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20673
time after the date of initiation, when
there is a reasonable basis to believe or
suspect that, under subparagraph (A)(i),
there is a history of dumping and
material injury by reason of dumped
imports in the United States or
elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or
(ii) the person by whom, or for whose
account, the merchandise was imported
knew or should have known that the
exporter was selling the subject
merchandise at less than its fair value
and that there was likely to be material
injury by reason of such sales, and,
under subparagraph (B), there have been
massive imports of the subject
merchandise over a relatively short
period. Section 351.206(h) of the
Department’s regulations defines
‘‘massive imports’’ as imports that have
increased by at least 15 percent over the
imports during an immediately
preceding period of comparable
duration. Section 351.206(i) of the
regulations states that ‘‘relatively short
period’’ will normally be defined as the
period beginning on the date the
proceeding begins and ending at least
three months later.
Petitioners allege that there is a
history of dumping and material injury
by reason of dumped imports as there is
currently an order in place in Canada
against imports of seamless OCTG from
China. Petitioners cite to Canada’s SemiAnnual report to the World Trade
Organization’s Committee on Antidumping Practices, which demonstrates
that as of March 10, 2008, Canada
imposed definitive duties on the PRC
against imports of seamless carbon or
alloy steel oil and gas well casings.
Further, Petitioners allege that importers
knew, or should have known, that
OCTG was being sold at less than its fair
value. Specifically, Petitioners allege
margins, as adjusted by the Department,
of between 36.94 and 99.14 percent, a
level high enough to impute importer
knowledge that merchandise was being
sold at less than its fair value.
Petitioners also have alleged that
imports from the PRC have been
massive over a relatively short period.
Alleging that there was sufficient prefiling notice of these countervailing
duty Petitions, Petitioners contend that
the Department should compare imports
during January through June 2008 to
imports during July through December
2008 for purposes of this determination.
Specifically, Petitioners supported this
allegation with copies of news articles
discussing the likelihood of filing unfair
trade complaints against producers of
OCTG. For example, Petitioners cite to
an international news article in July
2008 discussing the likelihood that U.S.
steel producers would file unfair trade
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
20674
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Notices
cases related to seamless pipe, and
explaining that OCTG makes up
approximately half of total exports of
Chinese seamless pipe. In addition,
Petitioners cite to a number of other
news articles, ITC decisions on other
pipe and tube products and recent cases
on the same or similar product in other
countries. Petitioners argue that the
most definitive example of prior
knowledge was contained within the
July 2008 article and used this as the
basis for their comparison periods.
Their comparison of the six month
period prior to that article (January–June
2008) with the six month period
immediately following (July–December
2008) showed that the U.S. imports of
OCTG from China increased 165
percent.
Although the ITC has not yet made a
preliminary decision with respect to
injury, Petitioners note that in the past
the Department has also considered the
extent of the increase in the volume of
imports of the subject merchandise as
one indicator of whether a reasonable
basis exists to impute knowledge that
material injury was likely. In this case
involving the PRC, Petitioners note that
the increase in imports far exceeds the
amount considered ‘‘massive.’’
Taking into consideration the
foregoing, we find that Petitioners have
alleged the elements of critical
circumstances and supported them with
information reasonably available for
purposes of initiating a critical
circumstances inquiry. For these
reasons, we will investigate this matter
further and will make a preliminary
determination at the appropriate time,
in accordance with section 735(e)(1) of
the Act and Department practice.13
Period of Investigation
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.204(b), because this Petition was
filed on April 8, 2009, the anticipated
period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
October 1, 2008, through March 31,
2009, the two most recently completed
fiscal quarters, as of the month
preceding the month in which the
petition was filed.
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegations of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department has based
its decision to initiate an investigation
with respect to the PRC. The sources of
data for the deductions and adjustments
relating to U.S. price and NV are
discussed in the Initiation Checklist.
13 See Policy Bulletin 98/4 (63 FR 55364, October
15, 1998).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
Should the need arise to use any of this
information as facts available under
section 776 of the Act, we may
reexamine the information and revise
the margin calculations, if appropriate.
Export Price
Petitioners calculated export prices
(‘‘EPs’’) for both welded and seamless
OCTG based on an offer for sale (for four
welded OCTG products) and two
invoices and corresponding purchase
orders, and an offer for sale (for
seamless OCTG). Petitioner presented
affidavits for the offers for sale attesting
that the offers were made during the
POI.14
To calculate the net U.S. EP,
Petitioners deducted from the U.S.
prices a trader markup, the costs
associated with exporting and
delivering the product, which included
foreign inland freight, ocean freight,
insurance expenses, foreign port charges
(stevedoring, wharfage and handling
charges), foreign brokerage and
handling, and U.S. port expenses
(security fee, unloading fee, and
wharfage).
We have not made separate
adjustments to U.S. price for foreign
port charges (stevedoring, wharfage and
handling charges) or the U.S. port
expenses of unloading fee and wharfage
because evidence on the record
indicates these expenses are already
included in ocean freight or insurance
expenses. Petitioners calculate per-unit
ocean freight and insurance using U.S.
Census Bureau data, by deducting the
reported customs value of OCTG landed
in a certain U.S. port from the reported
CIF value and dividing it by the total
import quantity.15 The U.S. Census
defines CIF data as the sum of import
charges and customs value.16
Accordingly, when customs value is
deducted from the CIF value, what is
left is import charges. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines import charges as ‘‘the
aggregate cost of all freight, insurance,
and other charges (excluding U.S.
import duties) incurred in bringing the
merchandise from alongside the carrier
at the port of exportation in the country
of exportation and placing it alongside
the carrier at the first port of entry in the
United States.’’17 Thus it is clear that
import charges, the basis for ocean
freight and insurance, include the
expenses associated with loading the
merchandise from the wharf to the
14 See
Initiation Checklist for further discussion.
Volume II–A of the Petition at pages 11–
12 and Exhibit II–7; Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at pages 4–7.
16 See https://www.census.gov/foreigntrade/www/
sec2.html#valcusimports.
17 Id.
15 See
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
carrier, and those expenses associated
with unloading the merchandise from
the vessel to wharf, i.e., stevedoring,
wharfage and handling.
Normal Value
Petitioners state that in every previous
less-than-fair value investigation
involving merchandise from the PRC,
the Department has concluded that the
PRC is a non-market economy country
(‘‘NME’’) and, as the Department has not
revoked this determination, its NME
status remains in effect today.18 The
Department has previously examined
the PRC’s market status and determined
that NME status should continue for the
PRC.19 In addition, in recent
investigations, the Department has
continued to determine that the PRC is
an NME country.20
In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status remains in
effect until revoked by the Department.
The presumption of NME status for the
PRC has not been revoked by the
Department and, therefore, remains in
effect for purposes of the initiation of
this investigation. Accordingly, the NV
of the product is appropriately based on
factors of production valued in a
surrogate market economy country, in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act. In the course of this investigation,
all parties will have the opportunity to
provide relevant information related to
the issues of the PRC’s NME status and
the granting of separate rates to
individual exporters.
Petitioners argue that India is the
appropriate surrogate country for the
PRC because it is at a comparable level
of economic development and it is a
significant producer of tubular steel
products.21 Petitioners state that the
Department has determined in previous
investigations and administrative
reviews that India is at a level of
development comparable to the PRC.22
18 See
Volume II–A of the Petition, at page 2.
Memorandum from the Office of Policy to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding The People’s Republic of
China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated May
15, 2006. This document is available online at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prcnme-status-memo.pdf.
20 See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009); Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009);
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 10545
(March 11, 2009).
21 See Volume II–A of the Petition, at page 4.
22 See id.
19 See
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Notices
Petitioners also assert that in 2006 India
produced 1,027,000 metric tons of
tubular steel products, indicating it is a
significant producer of tubular steel
products.23
Based on the information provided by
Petitioners, the Department believes that
the use of India as a surrogate country
is appropriate for purposes of initiation.
However, after initiation of the
investigation, interested parties will
have the opportunity to submit
comments regarding surrogate country
selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an
opportunity to submit publicly available
information to value factors of
production within 40 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary
determination.
Petitioners provided dumping margin
calculations using the Department’s
NME methodology as required by 19
CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) and 19 CFR
351.408. Petitioners calculated four NVs
for welded OCTG and three NVs for
seamless OCTG.
Petitioners valued the factors of
production using reasonably available,
public surrogate country data, including
India import data from the Monthly
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India
from the period May 2008 through
October 2008, the most current WTA
data available.24
Petitioners state that they valued hotrolled steel coil and steel scrap using
Indian import data from the Monthly
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India,
under Indian HTS numbers 7208.36,
7208.37, and 7208.38 for hot-rolled steel
coil and Indian HTS number 7204.49.00
for steel scrap.25
Petitioners valued electricity using
Indian electricity rates disseminated by
the Central Electricity Authority in
India.26
Petitioners valued labor using the
wage rate data published on the
Department’s Web site, at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/04wages/04wages010907.html.27
Petitioners included a value for
‘‘production equipment tires’’ in its NV
calculation for seamless OCTG.
Consistent with Department practice we
did not include a value for ‘‘production
equipment tires’’ in the calculation of
23 See
id.
Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated
April 22, 2009, at page 1.
25 See Volume II–A of the Petition, at page 20–
21, and Exhibit 20. See also Supplement to the PRC
AD Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at Exhibit II–7.
26 See Volume II–A of the Petition, at page 21, and
Exhibit 21. See also Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at Exhibit II–41.
27 See Volume II–A of the Petition, at page 21, and
Exhibit II–22.
24 See
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
NV. The Department has, in previous
proceedings, found that materials
consumed for the purpose of
manufacturing subject merchandise, are
properly considered factors of
production. However, in the instant
investigation, there is no evidence on
the record indicating what ‘‘production
equipment tires’’ are, or how they are
consumed in the production of OCTG.
Therefore, for purposes of initiation, we
are not including production equipment
tires in the calculation of normal
value.28
Where Petitioners were unable to find
input prices contemporaneous with the
POI, Petitioners adjusted for inflation
using the wholesale price index for
India, as published in ‘‘International
Financial Statistics’’ by the International
Monetary Fund.29 Petitioners used
exchange rates, as provided on the
Department’s Web site, to convert
Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.30
Petitioners based factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative
expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, on the
financial ratios of Maharashtra Seamless
Ltd. (‘‘MSL’’), Ratnamani Metals &
Tubes Ltd. (‘‘Ratnamani’’), Steel
Authority of India, Ltd. (‘‘SAIL’’), Tata
Steel Limited (‘‘Tata’’), and Welspun
Gujarat Stahl Rohen Ltd. (‘‘Welspun’’),
Indian producers of pipe and tube, with
adjustments as requested by the
Department.31 However, MSL’S
financial statements demonstrated that
the company received subsidies that the
Department had previously determined
to be countervailable,32 and Petitioners
removed MSL from the pool of
companies used as the source of
surrogate financial ratio calculations.33
Thus, Petitioners based their
28 See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR
33977 (June 16, 2008); Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
29303 (May 22, 2006).
29 See Volume II–A of the Petition, at pages 18–
19, and Exhibit 8.
30 See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated
April 22, 2009, at page 15 and Exhibits II–33 and
II–34.
31 See Volume II–A of the Petition, at pages 22–
23 and Exhibit 23, and Volume II–B of the Petition,
at pages 3, 13–15 and Exhibits 32–LL, –MM, –NN,
–OO, –PP and –QQ(1) and –QQ(2); see also
Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22,
2009, at pages 16–19 and Exhibits Supp. II–50 and
Supp. II–51.
32 See letter to Petitioners, ‘‘Re: Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Oil Country Tubular Goods Imported
from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated April
17, 2009.
33 See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated
April 22, 2009, at page 16.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20675
calculations on the annual reports as of
March 31, 2008, of Ratnamani, SAIL,
Tata and Welspun. Although these
financial statements do not overlap the
POI, they represent the most current
information reasonably available to
Petitioners at the time they filed the
Petition.
Petitioners calculated separate
financial ratios for seamless and welded
OCTG. Petitioners based the ratios for
seamless OCTG on the simple average of
SAIL’s and Tata’s overhead, SG&A, and
profit ratios, asserting that SAIL and
Tata are large integrated steel producers
like Baosteel Group Shanghai Steel
Tube (‘‘Baosteel’’) and Baotou Iron &
Steel (‘‘Baotou’’), and produce
comparable merchandise.34 Petitioners
based ratios for welded OCTG on the
simple average of Ratnamani’s and
Welspun’s overhead, SG&A, and profit
ratios, asserting that Ratnamani and
Welspun produce a range of pipe
products which match the production
experience of Huludao City Steel Pipe
Industrial Co. (‘‘Huludao’’).35
We made no changes to Petitioners’
calculations for Tata. We made changes
to Petitioners’ calculations for
Ratnamani, Welspun and SAIL as
follows.36
Ratnamani
• We excluded the value of opening
and closing stock of finished goods from
our calculations.
Welspun
• We excluded the increase (or
decrease) on excise on finished goods
from our calculations.
• We reclassified coating and other
job charges from materials to
manufacturing overhead.
• We reclassified repairs—other from
SG&A to manufacturing overhead.
• We excluded interest received gross
from our calculations.
• We applied the value of
depreciation as recorded on the income
statement in our calculations (the value
used by Petitioners did not reflect the
value in the income statement).
SAIL
• We reclassified grants in aid
received from the government of
Kamataka and travel concession from
34 See Volume II–B of the Petition, at page 3,
Exhibits 32–LL, –MM, –NN, –OO, –PP and –QQ(1)
and –QQ(2); see also Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at Exhibit Supp. II–
50.
35 See Volume II–A of the Petition, at page 22,
Exhibit 23; see also Supplement to the PRC AD
Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at Exhibit Supp. II–
51.
36 See Attachment V to the Initiation Checklist for
all calculations.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
20676
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Notices
SG&A to labor, to correspond with their
treatment in the financial statements.
• We reclassified handling expenses
for raw materials and scrap from SG&A
to raw materials.
• We reclassified conversion charges,
water charges & cess on water pollution
and provisions: stores, spares and
sundries from SG&A to manufacturing
overhead.
• We excluded handling expenses for
finished goods from our calculations.
• We reclassified power and fuel
expense from raw materials to energy.
• We excluded adjustments
pertaining to earlier years and fringe
benefits tax from our calculations.
Fair-Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by
Petitioners, there is reason to believe
that imports of OCTG from the PRC are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV as
revised above, the estimated dumping
margins for the PRC range from 36.94
percent to 99.14 percent.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the
Petition concerning OCTG from the PRC
and other information reasonably
available to the Department, the
Department finds that this Petition
meets the requirements of section 732 of
the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an
antidumping duty investigation to
determine whether imports of OCTG
from the PRC are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value. In accordance with section
733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless
postponed, we will make our
preliminary determinations no later
than 140 days after the date of this
initiation.
Targeted-Dumping Allegations
On December 10, 2008, the
Department issued an interim final rule
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR
351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory
provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty
investigations, and the corresponding
regulation governing the deadline for
targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR
351.301(d)(5).37 The Department stated
that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the
Department to exercise the discretion
intended by the statute and, thereby,
develop a practice that will allow
interested parties to pursue all statutory
avenues of relief in this area.’’ 38
37 See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions
Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008).
38 Id. at 74931.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
In order to accomplish this objective,
if any interested party wishes to make
a targeted-dumping allegation in any of
these investigations pursuant to section
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such
allegations are due no later than 45 days
before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination.
Respondent Selection
For the PRC, the Department will
request quantity and value information
from all known exporters and producers
identified, with complete contact
information, in the Petition. The
quantity and value data received from
NME exporters/producers will be used
as the basis to select the mandatory
respondents.
The Department requires that the
respondents submit a response to both
the quantity and value questionnaire
and the separate-rate application by the
respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.39
Appendix II of this notice contains the
quantity and value questionnaire that
must be submitted by all NME
exporters/producers no later than May
19, 2009. In addition, the Department
will post the quantity and value
questionnaire along with the filing
instructions on the Import
Administration Web site, at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html. The Department will send
the quantity and value questionnaire to
those PRC companies identified in the
Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit I–6.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status
in an NME investigation, exporters and
producers must submit a separate-rate
status application.40 The specific
requirements for submitting the
separate-rate application in this
investigation are outlined in detail in
the application itself, available on the
Department’s Web site at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html on the date of publication of
this initiation notice in the Federal
Register. The separate-rate application
will be due sixty (60) days from the date
39 See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR
10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist
Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR
21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005).
40 See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188,
23193 (April 29, 2008) (‘‘Certain Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of publication of this initiation notice in
the Federal Register.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME
Investigation
The Department will calculate
combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. The
Separate Rates/Combination Rates
Bulletin 41 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.42
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
representatives of the Government of the
PRC. Because of the particularly large
number of producers/exporters
identified in the Petition, the
Department considers the service of the
public version of the Petition to the
foreign producers/exporters satisfied by
the delivery of the public version to the
Government of the PRC, consistent with
19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
International Trade Commission
(‘‘ITC’’) Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
41 See Import Administration Policy Bulletin,
Number: 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy
Countries,’’ dated April 5, 2005, available on the
Department’s Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
policy/bull05-1.pdf.
42 See also Certain Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR 23188,
23193.
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Notices
Preliminary Determination by the
International Trade Commission
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
no later than May 26, 2009,43 whether
there is a reasonable indication that
imports of OCTG from the PRC
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative
ITC determination covering all classes
or kinds of merchandise covered by the
Petition would result in the
investigation being terminated.
Otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: April 28, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by the
investigation consists of certain oil country
tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’), which are hollow
steel products of circular cross-section,
including oil well casing and tubing, of iron
(other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon
and alloy), whether seamless or welded,
regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not
plain end, threaded, or threaded and
coupled) whether or not conforming to
American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) or nonAPI specifications, whether finished
(including limited service OCTG products) or
unfinished (including green tubes and
limited service OCTG products), whether or
not thread protectors are attached. The scope
of the investigation also covers OCTG
coupling stock. Excluded from the scope of
the investigation are casing or tubing
containing 10.5 percent or more by weight of
chromium; drill pipe; unattached couplings;
and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise covered by the
investigation is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers:
7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30,
7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60,
7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20,
7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50,
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10,
7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40,
7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80,
7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30,
7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60,
7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30,
7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75,
7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45,
7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00,
7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00,
7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00,
7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10,
7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and
7306.29.81.50.
The OCTG coupling stock covered by the
investigation may also enter under the
following HTSUS item numbers:
7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32,
7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44,
7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56,
7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72,
7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00,
7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25,
7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40,
7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55,
7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70,
and 7304.59.80.80.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes only; the
written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II
Where it is not practicable to examine all
known exporters/producers of subject
merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, permits us to
investigate 1) a sample of exporters,
producers, or types of products that is
statistically valid based on the information
available at the time of selection, or 2)
exporters and producers accounting for the
largest volume of the subject merchandise
that can reasonably be examined.
In the chart below, please provide the total
quantity and total value of all your sales of
merchandise covered by the scope of this
investigation (see ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’
section of this notice), produced in the PRC,
and exported/shipped to the United States
during the period October 1, 2007, through
March 31, 2007.
Total quantity
in metric tons
Market
20677
Terms of sale
Total value
United States
1. Export Price Sales
2. a. Exporter Name
b. Address
c. Contact
d. Phone No
e. Fax No.
3. Constructed Export Price Sales
4. Further Manufactured
Total Sales
Total Quantity
• Please report quantity on a metric ton
basis. If any conversions were used, please
provide the conversion formula and source.
Terms of Sales
• Please report all sales on the same terms
(e.g., free on board at port of export).
Total Value
• All sales values should be reported in
U.S. dollars. Please indicate any exchange
rates used and their respective dates and
sources.
Export Price Sales
• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an
export price sale when the first sale to an
unaffiliated customer occurs before
importation into the United States.
• Please include any sales exported by
your company directly to the United States.
• Please include any sales exported by
your company to a third-country market
economy reseller where you had knowledge
that the merchandise was destined to be
resold to the United States.
• If you are a producer of subject
merchandise, please include any sales
manufactured by your company that were
subsequently exported by an affiliated
exporter to the United States.
• Please do not include any sales of subject
merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in
your figures.
Constructed Export Price Sales
• Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a
constructed export price sale when the first
sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs after
importation. However, if the first sale to the
unaffiliated customer is made by a person in
the United States affiliated with the foreign
exporter, constructed export price applies
even if the sale occurs prior to importation.
• Please include any sales exported by
your company directly to the United States;
• Please include any sales exported by
your company to a third-country market
economy reseller where you had knowledge
that the merchandise was destined to be
resold to the United States.
• If you are a producer of subject
merchandise, please include any sales
43 Where the deadline falls on a weekend/
holiday, the appropriate date is the next business
day
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
20678
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Notices
manufactured by your company that were
subsequently exported by an affiliated
exporter to the United States.
• Please do not include any sales of subject
merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in
your figures.
Further Manufactured
• Sales of further manufactured or
assembled (including re-packaged)
merchandise is merchandise that undergoes
further manufacture or assembly in the
United States before being sold to the first
unaffiliated customer.
• Further manufacture or assembly costs
include amounts incurred for direct
materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts
for general and administrative expense,
interest expense, and additional packing
expense incurred in the country of further
manufacture, as well as all costs involved in
moving the product from the U.S. port of
entry to the further manufacturer.
[FR Doc. E9–10346 Filed 5–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is January
1, 2008, through December 31, 2008.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are certain OCTG from the
PRC. For a full description of the scope
of the investigation, please see the
‘‘Scope of the Investigation’’ in
Appendix I of this notice.
International Trade Administration
[C–570–944]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
from the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yasmin Nair and Joseph Shuler, AD/
CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3813 and (202)
482–1293, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On April 8, 2009, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received a
petition filed in proper form by
Maverick Tube Corporation; United
States Steel Corporation; TMK IPSCO;
V&M Star L.P.; Wheatland Tube
Corporation; Evraz Rocky Mountain
Steel; and the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, AFL–CIOCLC (collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’),
domestic producers of certain oil
country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’). In
response to the Department’s requests,
the petitioners provided timely
information supplementing the petition
on April 20, 22, and 24, 2009.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
23:12 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), the petitioners allege that
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
of OCTG in the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) receive countervailable
subsidies within the meaning of section
701 of the Act, and that such imports
are materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, an industry in the
United States.
The Department finds that the
petitioners filed the petition on behalf of
the domestic industry because they are
interested parties as defined in section
771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, and the
petitioners have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the
countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’)
investigation (see ‘‘Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition’’
section below).
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the petition, we
discussed the scope with the petitioners
to ensure that it is an accurate reflection
of the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
Department’s regulations (Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,
1997)), we are setting aside a period for
interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The
Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by
May 18, 2009, twenty calendar days
from the signature date of this notice.
Comments should be addressed to
Import Administration’s APO/Dockets
Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
The period of scope consultations is
intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and to consult with parties
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the Department invited
representatives of the Government of the
PRC for consultations with respect to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the CVD petition. The Department held
these consultations in Washington, DC,
on April 21, 2009. See the
Memorandum from Yasmin Nair and
Joseph Shuler to the File, entitled,
‘‘Consultations with Officials from the
Government of the People’s Republic of
China on the Countervailing Duty
Petition regarding Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods,’’ (April 23, 2009), which
is on file in the Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’) of the main Department of
Commerce building, Room 1117.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The U.S.
International Trade Commission
(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for
determining whether ‘‘the domestic
industry’’ has been injured, must also
determine what constitutes a domestic
like product in order to define the
industry. While both the Department
and the ITC must apply the same
statutory definition regarding the
domestic like product (section 771(10)
of the Act), they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and
distinct authority. In addition, the
Department’s determination is subject to
limitations of time and information.
Although this may result in different
definitions of the like product, such
differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law. See
E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM
05MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20671-20678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10346]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-943]
Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 5, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Paul Stolz, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0414 and (202) 482-4474,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On April 8, 2009, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of
certain oil country tubular goods (``OCTG'') from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC'') filed in proper form by Maverick Tube Corporation,
United States Steel Corporation, TMK IPSCO, V&M Star L.P., V&M Tubular
Corporation of America, Wheatland Tube Corp., Evraz Rocky Mountain
Steel, and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO-CLC, (collectively, ``Petitioners'').\1\ On April 17, 2009, the
Department issued a request for additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Based on the
Department's request, Petitioners filed supplements to the Petition on
April 22, 2009 (``Supplement to the Petition''). The Department
requested further clarifications from Petitioners by phone on April 23,
2009, regarding scope, industry support and U.S. price.\2\ On
[[Page 20672]]
April 24, 2009, Petitioners filed the requested information, including
a revised scope.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, As Amended (``Petition''), filed on April 8, 2009.
\2\ See Memorandum to the File from Matthew Glass, ``Petition
for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of
China (A-570-943) (C-357-819): Conference Call with Petitioners.''
\3\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Certain Oil Country Tubular
Goods from the People's Republic of China; Response to Department of
Commerce Questions Regarding Volume I and II of the Petitions for
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties,'' dated April
24, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), Petitioners allege that imports of OCTG from the
PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less
than fair value, within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that
such imports materially injure, or threaten material injury to, an
industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed this Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the investigation that they
are requesting the Department to initiate (see ``Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition'' below).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are certain OCTG from
the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the investigation,
please see the ``Scope of the Investigation'' in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope with
Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of the products
for which the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)),
we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by May 18, 2009, twenty calendar days
from the signature date of this notice. Comments should be addressed to
Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1117, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to provide the
Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and to
consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determinations.
Comments on Product Characteristics for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires
We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of OCTG to be reported in response
to the Department's antidumping questionnaires. This information will
be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject
merchandise in order to more accurately report the relevant factors and
costs of production, as well as to develop appropriate product
comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as (1) general product
characteristics and (2) the product comparison criteria. We note that
it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as
product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on
meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, while
there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by
manufacturers to describe OCTG, it may be that only a select few
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment
on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in
product matching. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most
important physical characteristics first and the least important
characteristics last.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing and issuing the antidumping duty questionnaires, we must
receive comments at the above-referenced address by May 18, 2009.
Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by May 25, 2009.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a Petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a Petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the Petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the Petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the Petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the Petition, as required by
subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a Petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''),
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry''
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp.
639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this subtitle.'' Thus, the reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
Petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on
the record, we have determined that OCTG constitute a single domestic
like product
[[Page 20673]]
and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
OCTG from the PRC (``Initiation Checklist'') at Attachment II
(``Industry Support''), dated concurrently with this notice and on
file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to section 732(c)(4)(A), in determining whether
Petitioners have standing, (i.e., those domestic workers and producers
supporting the Petition account for: (1) At least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50
percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the
Petition), we considered the industry support data contained in the
Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the
``Scope of Investigation'' section above. To establish industry
support, Petitioners provided their production of the domestic like
product for the year 2008, and compared this to an estimate of
production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic
industry.\6\ To estimate 2008 production of the domestic like product,
the Petitioners used an industry publication which reports data in
shipments. Petitioners approximated domestic production of OCTG by
inflating the volume of domestic shipments reported by the ratio of the
difference between Petitioners' production and shipments in the
applicable calendar year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Volume I of the Petition at, pages 3-4 and Exhibit I-3a.
\7\ See Volume I of the Petition, at page 3 and Exhibits I-3b
and I-3c, and Supplement to the Petition, at pages 10-11 and Exhibit
Supp. I-6. For further discussion, see Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First,
the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).\8\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i)
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the
Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product.\9\ Finally, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under
section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of
the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on
behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1)
of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act.
\9\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
\10\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined
in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient
industry support with respect to the antidumping investigation that
they are requesting the Department initiate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioners
allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided
for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, increased import penetration,
underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales
and revenue, reduced production and capacity utilization, reduced
shipments and increased inventories, reduced employment, and an overall
decline in financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material
injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III (Analysis of
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the
Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Circumstances
Petitioners have alleged that critical circumstances exist with
regard to imports of OCTG from the PRC, and have supported their
allegations with the following information.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act states that, if a Petitioner alleges
critical circumstances, the Department will find that such
circumstances exist, at any time after the date of initiation, when
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that, under
subparagraph (A)(i), there is a history of dumping and material injury
by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the
subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account,
the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the
exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair
value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such
sales, and, under subparagraph (B), there have been massive imports of
the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section
351.206(h) of the Department's regulations defines ``massive imports''
as imports that have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports
during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration. Section
351.206(i) of the regulations states that ``relatively short period''
will normally be defined as the period beginning on the date the
proceeding begins and ending at least three months later.
Petitioners allege that there is a history of dumping and material
injury by reason of dumped imports as there is currently an order in
place in Canada against imports of seamless OCTG from China.
Petitioners cite to Canada's Semi-Annual report to the World Trade
Organization's Committee on Anti-dumping Practices, which demonstrates
that as of March 10, 2008, Canada imposed definitive duties on the PRC
against imports of seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well
casings. Further, Petitioners allege that importers knew, or should
have known, that OCTG was being sold at less than its fair value.
Specifically, Petitioners allege margins, as adjusted by the
Department, of between 36.94 and 99.14 percent, a level high enough to
impute importer knowledge that merchandise was being sold at less than
its fair value.
Petitioners also have alleged that imports from the PRC have been
massive over a relatively short period. Alleging that there was
sufficient pre-filing notice of these countervailing duty Petitions,
Petitioners contend that the Department should compare imports during
January through June 2008 to imports during July through December 2008
for purposes of this determination. Specifically, Petitioners supported
this allegation with copies of news articles discussing the likelihood
of filing unfair trade complaints against producers of OCTG. For
example, Petitioners cite to an international news article in July 2008
discussing the likelihood that U.S. steel producers would file unfair
trade
[[Page 20674]]
cases related to seamless pipe, and explaining that OCTG makes up
approximately half of total exports of Chinese seamless pipe. In
addition, Petitioners cite to a number of other news articles, ITC
decisions on other pipe and tube products and recent cases on the same
or similar product in other countries. Petitioners argue that the most
definitive example of prior knowledge was contained within the July
2008 article and used this as the basis for their comparison periods.
Their comparison of the six month period prior to that article
(January-June 2008) with the six month period immediately following
(July-December 2008) showed that the U.S. imports of OCTG from China
increased 165 percent.
Although the ITC has not yet made a preliminary decision with
respect to injury, Petitioners note that in the past the Department has
also considered the extent of the increase in the volume of imports of
the subject merchandise as one indicator of whether a reasonable basis
exists to impute knowledge that material injury was likely. In this
case involving the PRC, Petitioners note that the increase in imports
far exceeds the amount considered ``massive.''
Taking into consideration the foregoing, we find that Petitioners
have alleged the elements of critical circumstances and supported them
with information reasonably available for purposes of initiating a
critical circumstances inquiry. For these reasons, we will investigate
this matter further and will make a preliminary determination at the
appropriate time, in accordance with section 735(e)(1) of the Act and
Department practice.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Policy Bulletin 98/4 (63 FR 55364, October 15, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b), because this Petition was
filed on April 8, 2009, the anticipated period of investigation
(``POI'') is October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009, the two most
recently completed fiscal quarters, as of the month preceding the month
in which the petition was filed.
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to
initiate an investigation with respect to the PRC. The sources of data
for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are
discussed in the Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any
of this information as facts available under section 776 of the Act, we
may reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if
appropriate.
Export Price
Petitioners calculated export prices (``EPs'') for both welded and
seamless OCTG based on an offer for sale (for four welded OCTG
products) and two invoices and corresponding purchase orders, and an
offer for sale (for seamless OCTG). Petitioner presented affidavits for
the offers for sale attesting that the offers were made during the
POI.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Initiation Checklist for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the net U.S. EP, Petitioners deducted from the U.S.
prices a trader markup, the costs associated with exporting and
delivering the product, which included foreign inland freight, ocean
freight, insurance expenses, foreign port charges (stevedoring,
wharfage and handling charges), foreign brokerage and handling, and
U.S. port expenses (security fee, unloading fee, and wharfage).
We have not made separate adjustments to U.S. price for foreign
port charges (stevedoring, wharfage and handling charges) or the U.S.
port expenses of unloading fee and wharfage because evidence on the
record indicates these expenses are already included in ocean freight
or insurance expenses. Petitioners calculate per-unit ocean freight and
insurance using U.S. Census Bureau data, by deducting the reported
customs value of OCTG landed in a certain U.S. port from the reported
CIF value and dividing it by the total import quantity.\15\ The U.S.
Census defines CIF data as the sum of import charges and customs
value.\16\ Accordingly, when customs value is deducted from the CIF
value, what is left is import charges. The U.S. Census Bureau defines
import charges as ``the aggregate cost of all freight, insurance, and
other charges (excluding U.S. import duties) incurred in bringing the
merchandise from alongside the carrier at the port of exportation in
the country of exportation and placing it alongside the carrier at the
first port of entry in the United States.''\17\ Thus it is clear that
import charges, the basis for ocean freight and insurance, include the
expenses associated with loading the merchandise from the wharf to the
carrier, and those expenses associated with unloading the merchandise
from the vessel to wharf, i.e., stevedoring, wharfage and handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Volume II-A of the Petition at pages 11-12 and Exhibit
II-7; Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at
pages 4-7.
\16\ See https://www.census.gov/foreigntrade/www/sec2.html#valcusimports.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Petitioners state that in every previous less-than-fair value
investigation involving merchandise from the PRC, the Department has
concluded that the PRC is a non-market economy country (``NME'') and,
as the Department has not revoked this determination, its NME status
remains in effect today.\18\ The Department has previously examined the
PRC's market status and determined that NME status should continue for
the PRC.\19\ In addition, in recent investigations, the Department has
continued to determine that the PRC is an NME country.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at page 2.
\19\ See Memorandum from the Office of Policy to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding
The People's Republic of China Status as a Non-Market Economy, dated
May 15, 2006. This document is available online at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
\20\ See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 14514 (March 31, 2009); Frontseating
Service Valves from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13,
2009); 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 10545 (March 11, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the
Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for
purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV
of the product is appropriately based on factors of production valued
in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to
the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates
to individual exporters.
Petitioners argue that India is the appropriate surrogate country
for the PRC because it is at a comparable level of economic development
and it is a significant producer of tubular steel products.\21\
Petitioners state that the Department has determined in previous
investigations and administrative reviews that India is at a level of
development comparable to the PRC.\22\
[[Page 20675]]
Petitioners also assert that in 2006 India produced 1,027,000 metric
tons of tubular steel products, indicating it is a significant producer
of tubular steel products.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at page 4.
\22\ See id.
\23\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by Petitioners, the Department
believes that the use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate
for purposes of initiation. However, after initiation of the
investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit
comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly
available information to value factors of production within 40 days
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
Petitioners provided dumping margin calculations using the
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated four NVs for welded OCTG and
three NVs for seamless OCTG.
Petitioners valued the factors of production using reasonably
available, public surrogate country data, including India import data
from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India from the
period May 2008 through October 2008, the most current WTA data
available.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22,
2009, at page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners state that they valued hot-rolled steel coil and steel
scrap using Indian import data from the Monthly Statistics of the
Foreign Trade of India, under Indian HTS numbers 7208.36, 7208.37, and
7208.38 for hot-rolled steel coil and Indian HTS number 7204.49.00 for
steel scrap.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at page 20-21, and Exhibit
20. See also Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22,
2009, at Exhibit II-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners valued electricity using Indian electricity rates
disseminated by the Central Electricity Authority in India.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at page 21, and Exhibit
21. See also Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22,
2009, at Exhibit II-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners valued labor using the wage rate data published on the
Department's Web site, at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/04wages/04wages-010907.html.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at page 21, and Exhibit
II-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners included a value for ``production equipment tires'' in
its NV calculation for seamless OCTG. Consistent with Department
practice we did not include a value for ``production equipment tires''
in the calculation of NV. The Department has, in previous proceedings,
found that materials consumed for the purpose of manufacturing subject
merchandise, are properly considered factors of production. However, in
the instant investigation, there is no evidence on the record
indicating what ``production equipment tires'' are, or how they are
consumed in the production of OCTG. Therefore, for purposes of
initiation, we are not including production equipment tires in the
calculation of normal value.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR
33977 (June 16, 2008); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Petitioners were unable to find input prices contemporaneous
with the POI, Petitioners adjusted for inflation using the wholesale
price index for India, as published in ``International Financial
Statistics'' by the International Monetary Fund.\29\ Petitioners used
exchange rates, as provided on the Department's Web site, to convert
Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at pages 18-19, and
Exhibit 8.
\30\ See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22,
2009, at page 15 and Exhibits II-33 and II-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners based factory overhead, selling, general and
administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit, on the financial ratios
of Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. (``MSL''), Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd.
(``Ratnamani''), Steel Authority of India, Ltd. (``SAIL''), Tata Steel
Limited (``Tata''), and Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohen Ltd. (``Welspun''),
Indian producers of pipe and tube, with adjustments as requested by the
Department.\31\ However, MSL'S financial statements demonstrated that
the company received subsidies that the Department had previously
determined to be countervailable,\32\ and Petitioners removed MSL from
the pool of companies used as the source of surrogate financial ratio
calculations.\33\ Thus, Petitioners based their calculations on the
annual reports as of March 31, 2008, of Ratnamani, SAIL, Tata and
Welspun. Although these financial statements do not overlap the POI,
they represent the most current information reasonably available to
Petitioners at the time they filed the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at pages 22-23 and Exhibit
23, and Volume II-B of the Petition, at pages 3, 13-15 and Exhibits
32-LL, -MM, -NN, -OO, -PP and -QQ(1) and -QQ(2); see also Supplement
to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at pages 16-19 and
Exhibits Supp. II-50 and Supp. II-51.
\32\ See letter to Petitioners, ``Re: Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Oil Country
Tubular Goods Imported from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
April 17, 2009.
\33\ See Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22,
2009, at page 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners calculated separate financial ratios for seamless and
welded OCTG. Petitioners based the ratios for seamless OCTG on the
simple average of SAIL's and Tata's overhead, SG&A, and profit ratios,
asserting that SAIL and Tata are large integrated steel producers like
Baosteel Group Shanghai Steel Tube (``Baosteel'') and Baotou Iron &
Steel (``Baotou''), and produce comparable merchandise.\34\ Petitioners
based ratios for welded OCTG on the simple average of Ratnamani's and
Welspun's overhead, SG&A, and profit ratios, asserting that Ratnamani
and Welspun produce a range of pipe products which match the production
experience of Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co. (``Huludao'').\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Volume II-B of the Petition, at page 3, Exhibits 32-LL,
-MM, -NN, -OO, -PP and -QQ(1) and -QQ(2); see also Supplement to the
PRC AD Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at Exhibit Supp. II-50.
\35\ See Volume II-A of the Petition, at page 22, Exhibit 23;
see also Supplement to the PRC AD Petition, dated April 22, 2009, at
Exhibit Supp. II-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We made no changes to Petitioners' calculations for Tata. We made
changes to Petitioners' calculations for Ratnamani, Welspun and SAIL as
follows.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Attachment V to the Initiation Checklist for all
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratnamani
We excluded the value of opening and closing stock of
finished goods from our calculations.
Welspun
We excluded the increase (or decrease) on excise on
finished goods from our calculations.
We reclassified coating and other job charges from
materials to manufacturing overhead.
We reclassified repairs--other from SG&A to manufacturing
overhead.
We excluded interest received gross from our calculations.
We applied the value of depreciation as recorded on the
income statement in our calculations (the value used by Petitioners did
not reflect the value in the income statement).
SAIL
We reclassified grants in aid received from the government
of Kamataka and travel concession from
[[Page 20676]]
SG&A to labor, to correspond with their treatment in the financial
statements.
We reclassified handling expenses for raw materials and
scrap from SG&A to raw materials.
We reclassified conversion charges, water charges & cess
on water pollution and provisions: stores, spares and sundries from
SG&A to manufacturing overhead.
We excluded handling expenses for finished goods from our
calculations.
We reclassified power and fuel expense from raw materials
to energy.
We excluded adjustments pertaining to earlier years and
fringe benefits tax from our calculations.
Fair-Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of OCTG from the PRC are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on
comparisons of EP to NV as revised above, the estimated dumping margins
for the PRC range from 36.94 percent to 99.14 percent.
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon the examination of the Petition concerning OCTG from the
PRC and other information reasonably available to the Department, the
Department finds that this Petition meets the requirements of section
732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether imports of OCTG from the PRC are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
Targeted-Dumping Allegations
On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the
regulatory provisions governing the targeted- dumping analysis in
antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation
governing the deadline for targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR
351.301(d)(5).\37\ The Department stated that ``{w{time} ithdrawal will
allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the statute
and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested parties to
pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930
(December 10, 2008).
\38\ Id. at 74931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to accomplish this objective, if any interested party
wishes to make a targeted-dumping allegation in any of these
investigations pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, such
allegations are due no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of
the preliminary determination.
Respondent Selection
For the PRC, the Department will request quantity and value
information from all known exporters and producers identified, with
complete contact information, in the Petition. The quantity and value
data received from NME exporters/producers will be used as the basis to
select the mandatory respondents.
The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.\39\ Appendix II of this notice
contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by
all NME exporters/producers no later than May 19, 2009. In addition,
the Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along
with the filing instructions on the Import Administration Web site, at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will
send the quantity and value questionnaire to those PRC companies
identified in the Petition, Volume I, at Exhibit I-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from
the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas
From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status
application.\40\ The specific requirements for submitting the separate-
rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the
application itself, available on the Department's Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication
of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The separate-rate
application will be due sixty (60) days from the date of publication of
this initiation notice in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe
from the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188, 23193
(April 29, 2008) (``Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Line Pipe from the PRC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin \41\
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.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1,
``Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries,''
dated April 5, 2005, available on the Department's Web site at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
\42\ See also Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line
Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR 23188, 23193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. Because
of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in
the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public
version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by
the delivery of the public version to the Government of the PRC,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
[[Page 20677]]
Preliminary Determination by the International Trade Commission
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than May 26,
2009,\43\ whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of OCTG
from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry. A negative ITC determination covering all classes or kinds of
merchandise covered by the Petition would result in the investigation
being terminated. Otherwise, this investigation will proceed according
to statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Where the deadline falls on a weekend/holiday, the
appropriate date is the next business day
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: April 28, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by the investigation consists of certain
oil country tubular goods (``OCTG''), which are hollow steel
products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and
tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and
alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g.,
whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether
or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-
API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG
products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service
OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The
scope of the investigation also covers OCTG coupling stock. Excluded
from the scope of the investigation are casing or tubing containing
10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached
couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise covered by the investigation is currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20,
7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60,
7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30,
7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80,
7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40,
7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10,
7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50,
7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30,
7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15,
7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75,
7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00,
7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00,
7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and
7306.29.81.50.
The OCTG coupling stock covered by the investigation may also
enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24,
7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40,
7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56,
7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76,
7304.39.00.80, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20,
7304.59.80.25, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40,
7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60,
7304.59.80.65, 7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes only; the written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II
Where it is not practicable to examine all known exporters/
producers of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, permits us to investigate 1) a sample of
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically
valid based on the information available at the time of selection,
or 2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of
the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total
value of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this
investigation (see ``Scope of Investigation'' section of this
notice), produced in the PRC, and exported/shipped to the United
States during the period October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
quantity Terms
Market in metric of Total value
tons sale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States ......... ...... ................
1. Export Price Sales ......... ...... ................
2. a. Exporter Name
b. Address
c. Contact
d. Phone No
e. Fax No. ......... ...... ................
3. Constructed Export Price Sales ......... ...... ................
4. Further Manufactured ......... ...... ................
Total Sales ......... ...... ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Quantity
Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any
conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and
source.
Terms of Sales
Please report all sales on the same terms (e.g., free
on board at port of export).
Total Value
All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars.
Please indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates
and sources.
Export Price Sales
Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price
sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before
importation into the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company
directly to the United States.
Please include any sales exported by your company to a
third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that
the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please
include any sales manufactured by your company that were
subsequently exported by an affiliated exporter to the United
States.
Please do not include any sales of subject merchandise
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.
Constructed Export Price Sales
Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed
export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer
occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the
unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States
affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price
applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation.
Please include any sales exported by your company
directly to the United States;
Please include any sales exported by your company to a
third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that
the merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please
include any sales
[[Page 20678]]
manufactured by your company that were subsequently exported by an
affiliated exporter to the United States.
Please do not include any sales of subject merchandise
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.
Further Manufactured
Sales of further manufactured or assembled (including
re-packaged) merchandise is merchandise that undergoes further
manufacture or assembly in the United States before being sold to
the first unaffiliated customer.
Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts
incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for
general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional
packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as
well as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port
of entry to the further manufacturer.
[FR Doc. E9-10346 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P