Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan, 32911-32914 [2010-13974]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices
tissue paper products from the PRC
would be likely to lead to the
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the following weighted–average
percentage margins:
Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers
Weighted–Average Margin (percent)
Qingdao Wenlong Co. Ltd .............................................................................................................................
Fujian Nanping Investment & Enterprise Co .................................................................................................
Fuzhou Light Industry Import & Export Co. Ltd ............................................................................................
Guilin Qifeng Paper Co. Ltd ..........................................................................................................................
Ningbo Spring Stationary Limited Company .................................................................................................
Everlasting Business & Industry Corporation Ltd ..........................................................................................
BA Marketing & Industrial Co. Ltd .................................................................................................................
Samsam Production Limited & Guangzhou Baxi Printing Products Limited ................................................
Max Fortune Industrial Limited ......................................................................................................................
PRC–wide rate ...............................................................................................................................................
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APO)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective orders
is hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: June 3, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–13972 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Notice of Informational Meeting for the
i6 Challenge Under EDA’s Economic
Adjustment Assistance Program
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Economic Development
Administration (EDA), Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY: The i6 Challenge is a new,
multi-agency innovation competition
led by the Economic Development
Administration (EDA), a bureau of the
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC).
The i6 Challenge is designed to
encourage and reward innovative,
ground-breaking ideas that will
accelerate technology
commercialization and new-venture
formation across the United States, for
the ultimate purpose of helping to drive
economic growth and job creation. To
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
32911
accomplish this, the i6 Challenge targets
sections of the research-to-deployment
continuum that are in need of additional
support, in order to strengthen regional
innovation ecosystems. Applicants to
the i6 Challenge are expected to propose
mechanisms to fill in existing gaps in
the continuum or leverage existing
infrastructure and institutions, such as
economic development organizations,
academic institutions, or other nonprofit organizations, in new and
innovative ways to achieve the i6
objectives. Under the i6 Challenge, EDA
intends to fund implementation grants
for technical assistance through its
Economic Adjustment Assistance
Program (42 U.S.C. 3149). The federal
funding opportunity for the i6 Challenge
was announced on May 3, 2010, and a
notice and request for applications was
published in the Federal Register (75
FR 23676).
DATES: EDA will hold an additional
informational meeting via conference
call at 4 p.m. (Eastern time) on Monday,
June 21, 2010, to answer questions
about the i6 Challenge. More details on
the meeting and any updates will be
posted at the i6 Challenge Web site at
https://www.eda.gov/i6.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information, please send
questions via e-mail to i6@doc.gov.
EDA’s Web site at https://www.eda.gov/
i6 also has information on EDA and the
i6 Challenge.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of the Meeting: To
communicate the goals and
requirements of the i6 Challenge and to
answer questions related to the federal
funding opportunity announcement.
Public Participation: To participate in
the informational meeting, please call
1–800–779–5194. Please give the
operator the passcode ‘‘EDA.’’ Because of
the anticipated number of callers,
callers should plan to dial-in 10 minutes
early. Please be advised that the
organizers of the meeting intend to (1)
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
112.64
112.64
112.64
112.64
112.64
112.64
112.64
112.64
112.64
112.64
record the full conference call and all
questions and answers, and (2) post the
recording at https://www.eda.gov/i6.
Dated: June 7, 2010.
Hina Shaikh,
Deputy Chief Counsel, Economic
Development Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–13970 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–24–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–583–008]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
From Taiwan
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from Taiwan for the period May 1, 2008,
to April 30, 2009 (the POR). We
preliminarily determine that sales of
subject merchandise by Yieh Phui
Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui) have
been made below normal value (NV). If
these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on
appropriate entries. Interested parties
are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We will issue the
final results no later than 120 days from
the publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
32912
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1131 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from Taiwan. See Certain Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
From Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Order,
49 FR 19369 (May 7, 1984)
(Antidumping Duty Order). On May 1,
2009, the Department issued a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of this order for the POR. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 74 FR 20278
(May 1, 2009). On June 1, 2009, a
domestic producer, Wheatland Tube
Company (petitioner), requested an
administrative review of Yieh Phui
Enterprise Co., Ltd. On June 24, 2009,
the Department published the notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 30052
(June 24, 2009).
Yieh Phui submitted a response to
Section A of the Department’s
questionnaire on July 31, 2009, and a
response to Sections B, C, and D of the
Department’s questionnaire on August
31, 2009. In response to the
Department’s August 25, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire pertaining
to Yieh Phui’s Section A response, Yieh
Phui submitted a response on
September 18, 2009. In response to the
Department’s November 6, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire covering
Yieh Phui’s Sections A–D responses,
Yieh Phui submitted a response for
Section A on November 30, 2009, and
a response for Sections B–D on
December 8, 2009. On December 15,
2009, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire covering
product characteristic issues, to which
Yieh Phui responded on December 22,
2009. In response to the Department’s
January 29, 2010, supplemental
questionnaire covering Yieh Phui’s
earlier Section A–D and product
characteristic questionnaire responses,
Yieh Phui submitted responses on
February 16, 2010 (Section A) and
March 10, 2010 (Sections B–D). On
April 22, 2010, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire relating to
information from various Yieh Phui
submissions. Yieh Phui submitted a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
response (including its final sales and
cost databases) on May 14, 2010.
On January 11, 2010, the Department
published an extension of the
preliminary results of the administrative
review. See Circular Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan;
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 1335
(January 11, 2010). On February 12,
2010, the Department tolled
administrative deadlines, including in
the instant review, by one calendar
week. See ‘‘Tolling of Administrative
Deadlines As a Result of the
Government Closure During the Recent
Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010.
As a result, the deadline for the issuance
of the preliminary results of the instant
review is June 7, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is certain circular welded carbon
steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan,
which are defined as: Welded carbon
steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross
section, with walls not thinner than
0.065 inch, and 0.375 inch or more but
not over 4.5 inches in outside diameter,
currently classified under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025,
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and
7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise subject
to this order is dispositive.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we
used export price (EP), as defined in
section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act). Section 772(a) of
the Act defines EP as the price at which
the subject merchandise is first sold
before the date of importation by the
producer or exporter outside of the
United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States, as adjusted under
section 772(c) of the Act. We calculated
an EP for Yieh Phui’s U.S. sales because
they were made directly to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to importation and
constructed export price (CEP) was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts
on the record.
For EP sales, we made deductions
from the starting price (gross unit price),
where appropriate, for movement
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement
expenses included inland freight,
warehousing expenses, brokerage fees,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
trade promotion fees, harbor
maintenance fees, and international
freight.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs
that NV be based on the price at which
the foreign like product is sold in the
home market, provided the merchandise
is sold in sufficient quantities (or value,
if quantity is inappropriate) and that
there is not a particular market situation
that prevents a proper comparison with
sales to the United States. The statute
contemplates that quantities (or value)
will normally be considered insufficient
if they are less than five percent of the
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of
the subject merchandise to the United
States. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
We found that Yieh Phui had a viable
home market for circular welded carbon
steel pipes and tubes because its home
market sales, by quantity, exceeded the
five percent threshold. See ‘‘Analysis
Memorandum for Yieh Phui Enterprise
Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui): Circular Welded
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from
Taiwan (A–583–008), May 1, 2008—
April 30, 2009’’ (Yieh Phui Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum) at 2. Yieh Phui
submitted home market sales data for
purposes of the calculation of NV. In
deriving NV, we made adjustments as
detailed in the ‘‘Calculation of Normal
Value Based on Comparison Market
Prices’’ section below.
B. Arm’s-Length Sales
The respondent reported sales of the
foreign like product to affiliated
customers, which, according to Yieh
Phui, consumed the merchandise. To
test whether these sales to affiliated
customers were made at arm’s length,
where possible, we compared the prices
of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers, net of all movement charges,
direct selling expenses, and packing.
Where the price to that affiliated party
was, on average, within a range of 98 to
102 percent of the price of the same or
comparable merchandise sold to the
unaffiliated parties at the same level of
trade, we determined that the sales
made to the affiliated party were at
arm’s length. See Modification
Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the
Comparison Market, 67 FR 69186
(November 15, 2002). Yieh Phui’s sales
to affiliated parties that were
determined not to be at arm’s length
were disregarded in the cost test and in
the comparison to U.S. sales.
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below-cost
sales in the most recently completed
segment of the proceeding, we had
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that home market sales of the foreign
like product by the respondent were
made at prices below the cost of
production (COP) during the POR, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act. See ‘‘Yieh Phui Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum’’ at 7. Therefore,
we required Yieh Phui to submit a
response to Section D of the
Department’s Questionnaire.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated the weightedaverage COP by model based on the sum
of materials, fabrication, general and
administrative (G&A), and interest
expenses. For more details, see ‘‘Yieh
Phui Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum’’ at 7–8.
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales
Prices
We compared the weighted-average
COPs for the respondent to its home
market sales prices of the foreign like
product, as required under section
773(b) of the Act, to determine whether
these sales had been made at prices
below the COP within an extended
period of time (i.e., normally a period of
one year) in substantial quantities and
whether such prices were sufficient to
permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. On a modelspecific basis, we compared the COP to
the home market prices, less any
applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, and direct and
indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregard below-cost sales where:
(1) 20 percent or more of the
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the POR were made at prices
below the COP in accordance with
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act;
and (2) based on comparisons of price
to weighted-average COPs for the POR,
we determine that the below-cost sales
of the product were at prices that would
not permit recovery of all costs within
a reasonable time period, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We
found Yieh Phui made sales below cost
and we disregarded such sales where
appropriate. See ‘‘Yieh Phui Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum’’ at 8.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison-Market Prices
We determined NV for Yieh Phui as
follows. We made deductions from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
gross price to account for discounts and
rebates. We deducted home market
packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs, in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also
deducted home market movement
expenses pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we
made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
Specifically, we made adjustments to
normal value for comparison to Yieh
Phui’s EP transactions by deducting
direct selling expenses incurred for
home market sales (i.e., credit expenses)
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses
(i.e., credit expenses, bank charges, and
cargo certification fees) and U.S.
commissions. See section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.410(c). Where we compared Yieh
Phui’s U.S. sales to home market sales
of merchandise, we made adjustments,
where appropriate, for physical
differences in the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides
that, where NV cannot be based on
comparison-market sales, NV may be
based on constructed value (CV).
Accordingly, for those models of
circular welded carbon steel pipes and
tubes for which we could not determine
the NV based on comparison-market
sales, either because there were no sales
of a comparable product or all sales of
the comparison products failed the COP
test, we based NV on CV.
Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides
that CV shall be based on the sum of the
cost of materials and fabrication for the
imported merchandise plus amounts for
selling, general, and administrative
expenses (SG&A), interest expenses,
profit, and U.S. packing expenses. We
calculated the cost of materials and
fabrication based on the methodology
described in the COP section of this
notice. We based SG&A and profit on
the actual amounts incurred and
realized by the respondent in
connection with the production and sale
of the foreign like product in the
ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the comparison market,
in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)
of the Act.
We made adjustments to CV for
differences in COS in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We deducted direct selling
expenses incurred for home market
sales (i.e., credit expenses). See section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32913
351.410(c). We added U.S. direct selling
expenses (i.e., credit expenses, bank
charges, and cargo certification fees) and
U.S. commissions to the NV.
F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export
Price Offset
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine
NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT)
as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent
practicable. When there are no sales at
the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to
comparison market sales at a different
LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV
LOT is that of the sales from which we
derive SG&A expenses and profit.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to
determine whether comparison market
sales were at a different LOT, we
examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and
the unaffiliated (or arm’s-length)
customers. The Department identifies
the LOT based on: The starting price or
constructed value (for normal value);
the starting price (for EP sales); and the
starting price, as adjusted under section
772(d) of the Act (for CEP sales). If the
comparison-market sales were at a
different LOT and the differences affect
price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences
between the sales on which NV is based
and comparison-market sales at the LOT
of the export transaction, we will make
an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote
from the factory than the CEP LOT and
there is no basis for determining
whether the differences in LOT between
NV and CEP affected price
comparability, we will grant a CEP
offset, as provided in section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Yieh Phui indicated there was a single
level of trade for all sales in both
markets, and petitioner has not claimed
that multiple levels of trade existed for
Yieh Phui. Yieh Phui provided
responses to the Department’s questions
regarding channels of distribution and
selling activities performed for different
categories of customers. See Yieh Phui’s
July 31, 2009 Section A response, at 12–
14. Yieh Phui’s chart of numerous
specific selling functions indicates the
selling functions performed for sales in
both markets are virtually identical,
with no significant variation across the
broader categories of sales process/
marketing support, freight and delivery,
inventory and warehousing, and quality
assurance/warranty services. For more
details, see ‘‘Yieh Phui Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum.’’ We have
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
32914
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
preliminarily determined there is one
single level of trade for all sales in both
the home market and the U.S. market,
and, therefore, that no basis exists for a
level of trade adjustment.
Assessment
Upon completion of the
administrative review, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b), the Department will
calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. The Department
Currency Conversion
will issue appropriate appraisement
instructions for the company subject to
We made currency conversions into
this review directly to CBP 15 days after
U.S. dollars in accordance with section
the date of publication of the final
773A of the Act, based on exchange
results of this review.
rates in effect on the date of the U.S.
Because Yieh Phui did not report the
sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve
entered value of its sales, we will
Bank. See also 19 CFR 351.415.
calculate importer-specific (or customerPreliminary Results of Review
specific) per-unit duty assessment rates
by aggregating the total amount of
As a result of this review, we
antidumping duties calculated for the
preliminarily determine the following
examined sales of each importer (or
weighted-average margin exists for the
customer) and dividing each of these
period May 1, 2008, through April 30,
amounts by the respective quantities (by
2009:
weight) associated with those sales. To
determine whether the duty assessment
Weightedrates are de minimis, in accordance with
average
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
Producer/exporter
margin
(percent351.106(c)(2), we will calculate
age)
importer-specific (or customer-specific)
ad valorem ratios based on estimated
Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd ...
5.04
entered values.
We will instruct CBP to assess
Disclosure and Public Comment
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by this review for each
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b), the Department will disclose importer (or customer) for which the
calculations performed within five days importer-specific (or customer-specific)
ad valorem ratio is above de minimis
of publication of this notice. Interested
(i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant
parties may submit case briefs and/or
to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct
written comments no later than 30 days
CBP to liquidate without regard to
after the date of publication of these
antidumping duties any entries for
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
which the importer-specific (or
351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and
customer-specific) ad valorem ratio is
rebuttals to written comments, limited
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
to issues raised in such briefs or
The Department clarified its
comments, may be filed no later than
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
five days after submission of case briefs. May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
submit arguments are requested to
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
submit with the argument: (1) A
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
statement of the issues; (2) a brief
Policy Notice). This clarification will
summary of the arguments; and (3) a
apply to entries of subject merchandise
table of authorities. Further, parties
during the POR produced by the
submitting written comments should
company included in the final results
provide the Department with an
where the reviewed companies did not
additional copy of the public version of
know the merchandise it sold to the
any such comments on diskette. An
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading
interested party may request a hearing
company, or exporter) was destined for
within 30 days of publication of these
the United States. In such instances, we
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
will instruct CBP to liquidate
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
unreviewed entries at the all-others rate
will be held two days after the date for
if there was no rate calculated in this
submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first review for the intermediary involved in
working day thereafter. The Department the transaction. See id., 68 FR at 23954.
will issue the final results of this
Cash Deposit Requirements
administrative review, which will
include the results of its analysis of
The following deposit rates will be
issues raised in any such comments,
effective upon publication of the final
within 120 days of publication of these
results of this administrative review for
preliminary results, pursuant to section
all shipments of circular welded carbon
751(a)(3) of the Act.
steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:40 Jun 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for Yieh Phui will be the rate
established in the final results of this
review, except if a rate is less than 0.50
percent, and therefore de minimis, the
cash deposit will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 9.70 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Antidumping Duty
Order.
These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of
the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results are issued
and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: June 4, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–13974 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
E:\FR\FM\10JNN1.SGM
10JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 111 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32911-32914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13974]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-008]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan for the period May 1, 2008, to
April 30, 2009 (the POR). We preliminarily determine that sales of
subject merchandise by Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui) have
been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the
publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: June 10, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
[[Page 32912]]
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1131 or (202)
482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 29, 2002, the Department published in the Federal
Register an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes from Taiwan. See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Order, 49 FR 19369 (May
7, 1984) (Antidumping Duty Order). On May 1, 2009, the Department
issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of
this order for the POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 74 FR 20278 (May 1, 2009). On June 1, 2009, a
domestic producer, Wheatland Tube Company (petitioner), requested an
administrative review of Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. On June 24,
2009, the Department published the notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009).
Yieh Phui submitted a response to Section A of the Department's
questionnaire on July 31, 2009, and a response to Sections B, C, and D
of the Department's questionnaire on August 31, 2009. In response to
the Department's August 25, 2009, supplemental questionnaire pertaining
to Yieh Phui's Section A response, Yieh Phui submitted a response on
September 18, 2009. In response to the Department's November 6, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire covering Yieh Phui's Sections A-D responses,
Yieh Phui submitted a response for Section A on November 30, 2009, and
a response for Sections B-D on December 8, 2009. On December 15, 2009,
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire covering product
characteristic issues, to which Yieh Phui responded on December 22,
2009. In response to the Department's January 29, 2010, supplemental
questionnaire covering Yieh Phui's earlier Section A-D and product
characteristic questionnaire responses, Yieh Phui submitted responses
on February 16, 2010 (Section A) and March 10, 2010 (Sections B-D). On
April 22, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire
relating to information from various Yieh Phui submissions. Yieh Phui
submitted a response (including its final sales and cost databases) on
May 14, 2010.
On January 11, 2010, the Department published an extension of the
preliminary results of the administrative review. See Circular Welded
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan; Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
1335 (January 11, 2010). On February 12, 2010, the Department tolled
administrative deadlines, including in the instant review, by one
calendar week. See ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of
the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February
12, 2010. As a result, the deadline for the issuance of the preliminary
results of the instant review is June 7, 2010.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order is certain circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are defined as: Welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section, with walls not
thinner than 0.065 inch, and 0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5 inches
in outside diameter, currently classified under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025,
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise subject to this order is
dispositive.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP), as
defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the
producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of
the Act. We calculated an EP for Yieh Phui's U.S. sales because they
were made directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to importation and constructed export price (CEP) was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record.
For EP sales, we made deductions from the starting price (gross
unit price), where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included inland
freight, warehousing expenses, brokerage fees, trade promotion fees,
harbor maintenance fees, and international freight.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided
the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity
is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market situation
that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United States. The
statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be
considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to
the United States. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
We found that Yieh Phui had a viable home market for circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes because its home market sales, by
quantity, exceeded the five percent threshold. See ``Analysis
Memorandum for Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui): Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan (A-583-008), May 1,
2008--April 30, 2009'' (Yieh Phui Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) at
2. Yieh Phui submitted home market sales data for purposes of the
calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in
the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices''
section below.
B. Arm's-Length Sales
The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to
affiliated customers, which, according to Yieh Phui, consumed the
merchandise. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were
made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges,
direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to that
affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent
of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the
unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the
sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison
Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Yieh Phui's sales to
affiliated parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were
disregarded in the cost test and in the comparison to U.S. sales.
[[Page 32913]]
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product
by the respondent were made at prices below the cost of production
(COP) during the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act. See ``Yieh Phui Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'' at 7.
Therefore, we required Yieh Phui to submit a response to Section D of
the Department's Questionnaire.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP by model based on the sum of materials,
fabrication, general and administrative (G&A), and interest expenses.
For more details, see ``Yieh Phui Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'' at
7-8.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent to its
home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e.,
normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether
such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregard below-cost sales where: (1) 20 percent or more of the
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at
prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)
of the Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average
COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product
were at prices that would not permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Act. We found Yieh Phui made sales below cost and we disregarded such
sales where appropriate. See ``Yieh Phui Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum'' at 8.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We determined NV for Yieh Phui as follows. We made deductions from
the gross price to account for discounts and rebates. We deducted home
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also deducted home market
movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In
addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically,
we made adjustments to normal value for comparison to Yieh Phui's EP
transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (i.e., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (i.e., credit expenses, bank charges, and cargo certification
fees) and U.S. commissions. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.410(c). Where we compared Yieh Phui's U.S. sales to home
market sales of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate,
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be
based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value
(CV). Accordingly, for those models of circular welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes for which we could not determine the NV based on
comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a
comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the
COP test, we based NV on CV.
Section 773(e)(1) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the
sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported
merchandise plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative
expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, profit, and U.S. packing expenses.
We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the
methodology described in the COP section of this notice. We based SG&A
and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign
like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We deducted direct
selling expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit
expenses). See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(c). We added U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit
expenses, bank charges, and cargo certification fees) and U.S.
commissions to the NV.
F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV
based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT) as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there
are no sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison
market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is
that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether comparison
market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers.
The Department identifies the LOT based on: The starting price or
constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for EP
sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of the
Act (for CEP sales). If the comparison-market sales were at a different
LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV
is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export
transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A)
of the Act.
Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in
LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Yieh Phui indicated there was a single level of trade for all sales
in both markets, and petitioner has not claimed that multiple levels of
trade existed for Yieh Phui. Yieh Phui provided responses to the
Department's questions regarding channels of distribution and selling
activities performed for different categories of customers. See Yieh
Phui's July 31, 2009 Section A response, at 12-14. Yieh Phui's chart of
numerous specific selling functions indicates the selling functions
performed for sales in both markets are virtually identical, with no
significant variation across the broader categories of sales process/
marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and
quality assurance/warranty services. For more details, see ``Yieh Phui
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.'' We have
[[Page 32914]]
preliminarily determined there is one single level of trade for all
sales in both the home market and the U.S. market, and, therefore, that
no basis exists for a level of trade adjustment.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date
of the U.S. sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve Bank. See also 19
CFR 351.415.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the
following weighted-average margin exists for the period May 1, 2008,
through April 30, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/exporter margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd............................. 5.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments,
may be filed no later than five days after submission of case briefs.
See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to
submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues; (2) a brief
summary of the arguments; and (3) a table of authorities. Further,
parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with
an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on
diskette. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for
submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working day thereafter. The
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the Act.
Assessment
Upon completion of the administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement
instructions for the company subject to this review directly to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
Because Yieh Phui did not report the entered value of its sales, we
will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty
assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales of each importer (or customer) and
dividing each of these amounts by the respective quantities (by weight)
associated with those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment
rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-
specific) ad valorem ratios based on estimated entered values.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review for each importer (or
customer) for which the importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad
valorem ratio is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratio is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in the
final results where the reviewed companies did not know the merchandise
it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or
exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there was no rate calculated in this review for the
intermediary involved in the transaction. See id., 68 FR at 23954.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for Yieh Phui will be the rate established in the final results of
this review, except if a rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore
de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit
rate will be 9.70 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 4, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-13974 Filed 6-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
