Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan, 32911-32914 [2010-13974]

Download as PDF 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 http://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 http://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 http://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