Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 33779-33782 [2010-14371]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 2010 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–489–815]
Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and
Tube from Turkey; Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.,
and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S.,
(‘‘collectively, Toscelik’’) the Department
of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on light–
walled rectangular pipe and tube from
Turkey. Atlas Tube, Inc. and Searing
Industries, Inc. are petitioners in this
case. The review covers exports of the
subject merchandise to the United
States produced and exported by
Toscelik. The period of review (‘‘POR’’)
is January 30, 2008, through April 30,
2009.
We preliminarily find that Toscelik
did not make sales at less than normal
value (‘‘NV’’) during the POR. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) not to assess
antidumping duties on entries made by
Toscelik and to set the cash deposit rate
for Toscelik to zero.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1121 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping duty order on light–walled
rectangular ripe and tube from Turkey
on May 30, 2008. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Light–Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from
Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). On
May 1, 2009, the Department published
the notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of light–walled
rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey
for the period January 30, 2008, through
April 30, 2009. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 74
FR 20278 (May 1, 2009).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Jun 14, 2010
Jkt 220001
On May 29, 2009, Toscelik requested
an administrative review for this period.
On June 24, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
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). On
June 25, 2009, Toscelik made an entry
of appearance in the proceeding.
On July 21, 2009, Toscelik sent a
letter to the Department requesting that
the reporting period for home market
sales be limited to the period May 1,
2008 to April 30, 2009. This is
consistent with our past practice in
other cases in which respondents
request limited reporting period because
they made sales of subject merchandise
in only a small part of the POR. See,
e.g., Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products From India: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018
(January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Final
Results, 71 FR 40694) and Certain Hot–
Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel
Products from Brazil; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406
(April 6, 2005) (unchanged in Final
Results, 70 FR 58683). On July 31, 2009,
the Department sent Toscelik a letter
indicating our consent to limiting the
reporting period for home market sales
to the period of May 1, 2008 through
June 30, 2009, based on the timing of its
U.S. sales during the POR. Toscelik had
requested that we limit the reporting
period to May 1, 2008 through April 30,
2009, however we did not shorten the
end of the reporting period because in
our margin calculations, U.S. sales made
in March and April 2009, could
potentially match to home market sales
made in May or June, 2009. On August
4, 2009, Atlas Tube, Inc. and Searing
Industries, Inc. (‘‘Petitioners’’) made an
entry of appearance in this proceeding.
On July 20, 2009, the Department
issued its antidumping questionnaire to
Toscelik. Toscelik submitted its
response to section A of the
Department’s antidumping
questionnaire on August 3, 2008
(‘‘Toscelik’s Section A Response’’).
Toscelik submitted its response to
sections B and C of the antidumping
questionnaire on August 17, 2009
(‘‘Toscelik’s Sections B and C
Response’’).
On September 29, 2009, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Toscelik regarding
Toscelik’s Section A Response and
Toscelik’s Sections B and C Response.
Toscelik submitted its response to the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33779
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire on October 22, 2009
(‘‘Toscelik’s October 22, 2009
Response’’).
On December 17, 2009, the
Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to Toscelik
regarding its prior questionnaire
responses. Toscelik submitted its
response to the Department’s second
supplemental questionnaire on January
25, 2010 (‘‘Toscelik’s January 25, 2010
Response’’). On February 24, 2010, the
Department issued a third supplemental
questionnaire to Toscelik. Toscelik
submitted its response to the
Department’s third supplemental
questionnaire on March 8, 2010
(‘‘Toscelik’s March 8, 2010 Response’’).
On May 13, 2010, the Department
issued a third supplemental
questionnaire to Toscelik regarding its
prior questionnaire responses. Toscelik
submitted its response to the
Department’s third supplemental
questionnaire on May 18, 2010
(‘‘Toscelik’s May 18, 2010 Response’’).
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order
is certain welded carbon quality light–
walled steel pipe and tube, of
rectangular (including square) cross
section, having a wall thickness of less
than 4 mm. The term carbon–quality
steel includes both carbon steel and
alloy steel which contains only small
amounts of alloying elements.
Specifically, the term carbon–quality
includes products in which none of the
elements listed below exceeds the
quantity by weight respectively
indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent
of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum,
or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30
percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of
lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30
percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of
molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of
niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium. The
description of carbon–quality is
intended to identify carbon–quality
products within the scope. The welded
carbon–quality rectangular pipe and
tube subject to this order is currently
classified under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and
7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and CBP’s customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Verification
We conducted verification of Toscelik
from April 12, 2010, through April 15,
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
33780
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 2010 / Notices
2010. See the Memorandum from Tyler
Weinhold and Mark Flessner to the File,
‘‘Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and
Tube from Turkey; Verification of
Information submitted by Toscelik
Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. and Tosyali
Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively,
‘‘Toscelik’’),’’ (‘‘Verification Report’’).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of light–
walled rectangular pipe and tube from
Turkey in the United States were made
at less than NV, we compared U.S. price
to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’
and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this
notice. In accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’), we calculated
monthly weighted–average NVs and
compared these to individual U.S.
transactions. Because we determined
Toscelik made only EP sales during the
POR, we used EP as the basis for U.S.
price in all of our comparisons. We used
the invoice date, as recorded in
Toscelik’s normal books and records, as
the date of sale for Toscelik’s EP and
home market sales. See 19 CFR
351.401(i). For a more detailed
discussion of these calculations, see
Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to
the File, ‘‘Analysis of Data Submitted by
Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.
and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S.
(collectively, ‘‘Toscelik’’) in the
Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009
Administrative Review of Light–Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from
Turkey,’’ dated June 7, 2010
‘‘Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’).
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products
produced by Toscelik covered by the
description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’
section, above, and sold in the home
market during the POR, to be foreign
like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product
comparisons to U.S. sales. As
mentioned above, we allowed Toscelik
to limit the reporting period for home
market sales to the period of May 1,
2008 through June 30, 2009. We relied
on six characteristics to match U.S. sales
of subject merchandise to home market
sales of the foreign like product (listed
in order of priority): 1) steel input type;
2) metallic coating; 3) painted/non–
painted; 4) perimeter; 5) wall thickness;
and 6) shape. See the antidumping
questionnaire at Appendix 5. Where
there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market to
compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to the next most similar
foreign like product on the basis of these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Jun 14, 2010
Jkt 220001
product characteristics and the
reporting instructions listed in the
antidumping questionnaire. Because
there were sales of identical or similar
merchandise in the home market
suitable for comparison to each U.S.
sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales
to constructed value (‘‘CV’’).
We relied on the prices and
adjustments as reported by Toscelik
based on Toscelik’s proprietary weights.
See Verification Report for more details.
Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP
as ‘‘the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by
the producer or exporter of subject
merchandise 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). In accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all of
Toscelik’s U.S. sales. We preliminarily
find that these sales are properly
classified as EP sales because these sales
were made before the date of
importation and were made directly to
unaffiliated U.S. customers, and because
our CEP methodology was not otherwise
warranted.
We based EP on the prices to
unaffiliated customers in the United
States. We made adjustments for price
or billing adjustments and discounts,
where applicable. We also made
deductions for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, which included, where
appropriate, foreign inland freight,
international freight, marine insurance,
and U.S. brokerage and handling.
Additionally, we made adjustments for
direct selling expenses (credit expenses)
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)
of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there
was a sufficient volume of sales in the
home market to serve as a viable basis
for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product was equal to or
greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales), we compared
Toscelik’s volume of home market sales
of the foreign like product to the volume
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,
in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of
the Act. Because Toscelik’s aggregate
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product was greater than
five percent of its aggregate volume of
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,
we determined the home market was
viable. Therefore, we have based NV on
home market sales in the usual
commercial quantities and in the
ordinary course of trade.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
No interested party has alleged sales
in the home market were made at prices
below the cost of production. Therefore,
we are not conducting a sales–belowcost investigation in this review. For
this reason, and because we did not
anticipate that we would have to use
constructed value as the basis for
normal value for any of Toscelik’s U.S.
sales of subject merchandise, we have
not required Toscelik to respond to
section D of the Department’s
questionnaire (costs of production and
constructed value).
Quarterly Costs of Production
Toscelik reported variable cost of
manufacture and total cost of
manufacture on the basis of quarterly
costs, and requested that it be allowed
to continue to report variable cost of
manufacture and total cost of
manufacture on this basis because of
changes in the purchase prices of one of
its major input materials, steel coil (steel
sheet/strip in coils). See Toscelik’s
Sections B and C Response at pages 37
to 38, and at Exhibit 8.
The Department’s normal practice is
to calculate an annual weighted–average
cost for the entire POR. See, e.g., Notice
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Pasta
from Italy, 65 FR 77852 (December 13,
2000), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18,
and Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822
(January 24, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5 (explaining the
Department’s practice of computing a
single weighted–average cost for the
entire period). However, the Department
recognizes that possible distortions may
result if our normal annual average cost
method is used during a period of
significant cost changes. Therefore, the
Department will deviate from its normal
methodology of calculating an annual
weighted average cost under certain
circumstances.
In determining whether to deviate
from our normal methodology of
calculating an annual weighted average
cost, the Department evaluates the case–
specific record evidence using two
primary factors: (1) the change in the
cost of manufacturing recognized by the
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
respondent during the POR must be
deemed significant; and, (2) the record
evidence must indicate that sales prices
during the shorter averaging periods
could be reasonably linked with the cost
of production (‘‘COP’’) or CV during the
same shorter averaging periods. See
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Final Results of Administrative
Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399 ‘‘December
11, 2008) (‘‘SSPC from Belgium’’) and
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from Mexico: Final Results of
Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627
(February 10, 2010) (‘‘S4 from Mexico’’).
In this case, we have determined that
the record evidence satisfies these
criteria for the pipe and tube products.
The record indicates Toscelik
experienced significant changes in the
cost of manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) during
the POR and that the change in COM is
primarily attributable to the price
volatility for coils, which are major
inputs consumed in the production of
the merchandise under consideration.
See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
The data show the percentage difference
between the high and low quarterly
COM clearly exceeded 25 percent
during the POR. Id. Our analysis of the
data provided by Toscelik reveals that
during the POR sales and costs were
generally trending in a consistent
manner, and also that Toscelik turns
over its inventory relatively quickly. Id.
These facts indicate that Toscelik’s costs
and sales prices were reasonably
correlated during the POR.
Therefore, the Department has used
variable costs of manufacture and total
costs of manufacture based on
Toscelik’s quarterly costs of production
in these preliminary results of review.
Specifically, the Department has
conducted the ‘‘below cost’’ and ‘‘cost
recovery’’ tests using an annual
weighted average cost of manufacturing
that incorporates an indexing method
that addresses the distortive effect of the
price volatility for costs. For a detailed
analysis, see Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
C. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to
unaffiliated customers. We made
adjustments for billing adjustments,
early payment discounts, and rebates,
where appropriate. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for
foreign inland freight, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In
addition, when comparing sales of
similar merchandise, we made
adjustments for differences in cost (i.e.,
DIFMER), where those differences were
attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:02 Jun 14, 2010
Jkt 220001
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of
the Act and section 351.411 of the
Department’s regulations. We also made
adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act and section 351.410 of the
Department’s regulations. We made COS
adjustments for imputed credit
expenses. Finally, 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.
D. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act, we base NV on CV if we are
unable to find a contemporaneous
comparison market match of identical or
similar merchandise for the U.S. sale.
Section 773(e) of the Act provides that
CV shall be based on the sum of the cost
of materials and fabrication employed in
making the subject merchandise, SG&A
expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs.
However, as explained above, for these
preliminary results, we did not base NV
on CV in any instances.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we base NV on sales made
in the comparison market at the same
level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the export
transaction. The NV LOT is based on the
starting price of sales in the home
market or, when NV is based on CV, on
the LOT of the sales from which SG&A
expenses and profit are derived.
To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than CEP sales, we
examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of
distribution between the producer and
the customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2).
If the comparison–market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects
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 make
a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. We expect that
if the claimed LOTs are the same, the
functions and activities of the seller
should be similar. Conversely, if a party
claims the LOTs are different for
different groups of sales, the functions
and activities of the seller should be
dissimilar. See Porcelain–on-Steel
Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
Toscelik reported that it sold light–
walled rectangular pipe and tube at only
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33781
one level of trade in the home market
and in the U.S. market. See Toscelik’s
Sections B and C Response at pages 23
and 61. Toscelik identified one channel
of distribution for sales in the home
market, ‘‘ex works’’ (channel 1) and one
channel of distribution in the U.S.
market, ‘‘direct to the importer’’ (channel
1). See Toscelik’s Section A Response at
page 12 and 13, and Toscelik’s Sections
B and C Response at pages 15 and 54.
Toscelik also reported that all sales in
the home market were sold to customers
within the same customer category,
‘‘distributors,’’ and that all sales in the
U.S. were sold to the same customer
category, ‘‘importer.’’ See Toscelik’s
Sections B and C Response at pages 15
and 53.
Based on our analysis of the record
evidence provided by Toscelik, we
preliminarily determine that a single
LOT exists in the home market.
Therefore, we have no basis upon which
to calculate a level of trade adjustment.
For these reasons, we preliminarily find
that a LOT adjustment is not
appropriate for Toscelik.
Moreover, we find that only minor
differences exist between the sole home
market channel of distribution and the
sole U.S. channel of distribution, that of
Toscelik’s EP sales. We obtained
information from Toscelik regarding the
marketing stages involved in making its
reported home market and U.S. sales.
Toscelik described all selling activities
performed, and provided a table
comparing the selling functions
performed among each channel of
distribution for both markets. See
Toscelik’s Section A response at Exhibit
7. We reviewed the nature of the selling
functions and the intensity to which all
selling functions were performed
between Toscelik’s EP and home market
channels of distribution and customer
categories.
While we found differences in the
levels of intensity performed between
the home market and U.S. market
channels of distribution for one of these
functions, the ‘‘warranty service’’
function, the difference is minor.
Toscelik reported that it performed
these functions in the home market at a
level of ‘‘<1’’ on a scale of 1 to 10, and
not at all in the U.S. market. See
Toscelik’s Section A Response at
Exhibit 7. Therefore, we find only minor
differences exist between the sole home
market channel of distribution and the
sole U.S. channel of distribution, that of
Toscelik’s EP sales.
The Department has determined that
we will find sales to be at the same LOT
when the selling functions performed
for each customer class are sufficiently
similar. See 19 CFR 351.412 (c)(2). We
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
33782
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 15, 2010 / Notices
find Toscelik performed virtually the
same level of customer support services
on its EP sales as it did on its home
market sales and that the minor
differences that do exist do not establish
distinct and separate levels of trade.
The record evidence supports a
finding that in both markets and in both
channels of distribution Toscelik
performs essentially the same level of
services. Therefore, based on our
analysis of the selling functions
performed on EP sales in the United
States, and its sales in the home market,
we determine that the EP and the
starting price of home market sales
represent the same stage in the
marketing process, and are thus at the
same LOT.
Currency Conversions
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with section 773A(a) of
the Act, we made Turkish lira–U.S.
dollar currency conversions, where
appropriate, based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales,
as collected by Dow Jones Reuters
Business Interactive LLC (trading as
Factiva) and as published on the Import
Administration’s web site (http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html).
arguments included in that party’s
rebuttal brief.
Comments
Interested parties may submit case
briefs no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed no later than 35 days after the date
of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument:
1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief
summary of the argument; 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. The
Department will issue final results of
this administrative review, including
the results of our analysis of the issues
in any such written comments or at a
hearing, within 120 days of publication
of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Upon
Preliminary Results of Review
completion of this administrative
As a result of our review, we
review, pursuant to section 351.212(b)
preliminarily find the following
of the Department’s regulations, the
Department will calculate an assessment
weighted–average dumping margin
rate on all appropriate entries. Toscelik
exists for the period January 30, 2008,
has reported entered values for all of its
through April 30, 2009:
sales of subject merchandise to the
Weighted Average United States during the POR.
Manufacturer / Exporter
Margin (percentTherefore, in accordance with section
age)
351.212(b)(1) of the Department’s
Toscelik .........................
0.00% regulations, we will calculate importer–
specific duty assessment rates on the
basis of the ratio of the total amount of
Disclosure and Public Hearing
antidumping duties calculated for the
The Department will disclose
examined sales to the total entered
calculations performed within five days value of the examined sales of that
of the date of publication of this notice
importer. These rates will be assessed
in accordance with section 351.224(b) of uniformly on all entries the respective
the Department’s regulations. An
importers made during the POR. Where
interested party may request a hearing
the assessment rate is above de minimis,
within thirty days of publication. See
we will instruct CBP to assess duties on
section 351.310(c) of the Department’s
all entries of subject merchandise by
regulations. Any hearing, if requested,
that importer. The Department intends
will be held 37 days after the date of
to issue appropriate assessment
publication, or the first business day
instructions directly to CBP fifteen days
thereafter, unless the Department alters
after publication of the final results of
the date pursuant to section 351.310(d)
review.
of the Department’s regulations.
The Department clarified its
Requests should contain the party’s
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
name, address, and telephone number,
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and
the number of participants, and a list of
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
the issues to be discussed. At the
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
hearing, each party may make an
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
affirmative presentation only on issues
clarification will apply to entries of
raised in that party’s case brief and may subject merchandise during the POR
make rebuttal presentations only on
produced by the respondent for which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Jun 14, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
it did not know its merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate un–reviewed entries at the all–
others rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. Id.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Furthermore, the following deposit
requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of light–walled rectangular pipe and
tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date of the final
results of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
1) the cash deposit rate for Toscelik will
be the rate established in the final
results of review; 2) if the exporter is not
a firm covered in this 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 3) 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 the all–others rate
of 27.04 percent ad valorem from the
LTFV investigation. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Light–Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From
Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008).
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) 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 the antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–14371 Filed 6–14–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
E:\FR\FM\15JNN1.SGM
15JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33779-33782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14371]
[[Page 33779]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-815]
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi
A.S., and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S., (``collectively, Toscelik'') the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled
rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Atlas Tube, Inc. and Searing
Industries, Inc. are petitioners in this case. The review covers
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States produced and
exported by Toscelik. The period of review (``POR'') is January 30,
2008, through April 30, 2009.
We preliminarily find that Toscelik did not make sales at less than
normal value (``NV'') during the POR. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') not to assess antidumping
duties on entries made by Toscelik and to set the cash deposit rate for
Toscelik to zero.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on light-walled
rectangular ripe and tube from Turkey on May 30, 2008. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from
Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). On May 1, 2009, the Department
published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review
of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey for the period
January 30, 2008, through April 30, 2009. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 20278 (May 1,
2009).
On May 29, 2009, Toscelik requested an administrative review for
this period. On June 24, 2009, the Department published in the Federal
Register a 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). On June 25, 2009, Toscelik made an entry of appearance
in the proceeding.
On July 21, 2009, Toscelik sent a letter to the Department
requesting that the reporting period for home market sales be limited
to the period May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009. This is consistent with
our past practice in other cases in which respondents request limited
reporting period because they made sales of subject merchandise in only
a small part of the POR. See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in
Final Results, 71 FR 40694) and Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon
Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005) (unchanged in
Final Results, 70 FR 58683). On July 31, 2009, the Department sent
Toscelik a letter indicating our consent to limiting the reporting
period for home market sales to the period of May 1, 2008 through June
30, 2009, based on the timing of its U.S. sales during the POR.
Toscelik had requested that we limit the reporting period to May 1,
2008 through April 30, 2009, however we did not shorten the end of the
reporting period because in our margin calculations, U.S. sales made in
March and April 2009, could potentially match to home market sales made
in May or June, 2009. On August 4, 2009, Atlas Tube, Inc. and Searing
Industries, Inc. (``Petitioners'') made an entry of appearance in this
proceeding.
On July 20, 2009, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to Toscelik. Toscelik submitted its response to section A
of the Department's antidumping questionnaire on August 3, 2008
(``Toscelik's Section A Response''). Toscelik submitted its response to
sections B and C of the antidumping questionnaire on August 17, 2009
(``Toscelik's Sections B and C Response'').
On September 29, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Toscelik regarding Toscelik's Section A Response and
Toscelik's Sections B and C Response. Toscelik submitted its response
to the Department's supplemental questionnaire on October 22, 2009
(``Toscelik's October 22, 2009 Response'').
On December 17, 2009, the Department issued a second supplemental
questionnaire to Toscelik regarding its prior questionnaire responses.
Toscelik submitted its response to the Department's second supplemental
questionnaire on January 25, 2010 (``Toscelik's January 25, 2010
Response''). On February 24, 2010, the Department issued a third
supplemental questionnaire to Toscelik. Toscelik submitted its response
to the Department's third supplemental questionnaire on March 8, 2010
(``Toscelik's March 8, 2010 Response''). On May 13, 2010, the
Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Toscelik
regarding its prior questionnaire responses. Toscelik submitted its
response to the Department's third supplemental questionnaire on May
18, 2010 (``Toscelik's May 18, 2010 Response'').
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this order is certain welded carbon
quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including
square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The
term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel
which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically,
the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent
of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of
nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of
zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify
carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality
rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and CBP's customs purposes, our written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Verification
We conducted verification of Toscelik from April 12, 2010, through
April 15,
[[Page 33780]]
2010. See the Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold and Mark Flessner to the
File, ``Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey;
Verification of Information submitted by Toscelik Profil ve Sac
Endustrisi A.S. and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively,
``Toscelik''),'' (``Verification Report'').
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of light-walled rectangular pipe and
tube from Turkey in the United States were made at less than NV, we
compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we
calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to
individual U.S. transactions. Because we determined Toscelik made only
EP sales during the POR, we used EP as the basis for U.S. price in all
of our comparisons. We used the invoice date, as recorded in Toscelik's
normal books and records, as the date of sale for Toscelik's EP and
home market sales. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For a more detailed
discussion of these calculations, see Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to
the File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by Toscelik Profil ve Sac
Endustrisi A.S. and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively,
``Toscelik'') in the Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009
Administrative Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from
Turkey,'' dated June 7, 2010 ``Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'').
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by Toscelik covered by the description in the ``Scope
of the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the
POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. As mentioned above, we
allowed Toscelik to limit the reporting period for home market sales to
the period of May 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. We relied on six
characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to home
market sales of the foreign like product (listed in order of priority):
1) steel input type; 2) metallic coating; 3) painted/non-painted; 4)
perimeter; 5) wall thickness; and 6) shape. See the antidumping
questionnaire at Appendix 5. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis
of these product characteristics and the reporting instructions listed
in the antidumping questionnaire. Because there were sales of identical
or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to
each U.S. sale, we did not compare any U.S. sales to constructed value
(``CV'').
We relied on the prices and adjustments as reported by Toscelik
based on Toscelik's proprietary weights. See Verification Report for
more details.
Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise
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). In accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all of Toscelik's U.S. sales. We
preliminarily find that these sales are properly classified as EP sales
because these sales were made before the date of importation and were
made directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers, and because our CEP
methodology was not otherwise warranted.
We based EP on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United
States. We made adjustments for price or billing adjustments and
discounts, where applicable. We also made deductions for movement
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, international
freight, marine insurance, and U.S. brokerage and handling.
Additionally, we made adjustments for direct selling expenses (credit
expenses) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales), we compared Toscelik's volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
Because Toscelik's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market
was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
No interested party has alleged sales in the home market were made
at prices below the cost of production. Therefore, we are not
conducting a sales-below-cost investigation in this review. For this
reason, and because we did not anticipate that we would have to use
constructed value as the basis for normal value for any of Toscelik's
U.S. sales of subject merchandise, we have not required Toscelik to
respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire (costs of
production and constructed value).
Quarterly Costs of Production
Toscelik reported variable cost of manufacture and total cost of
manufacture on the basis of quarterly costs, and requested that it be
allowed to continue to report variable cost of manufacture and total
cost of manufacture on this basis because of changes in the purchase
prices of one of its major input materials, steel coil (steel sheet/
strip in coils). See Toscelik's Sections B and C Response at pages 37
to 38, and at Exhibit 8.
The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual
weighted-average cost for the entire POR. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from
Italy, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 2000), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel
Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 (explaining the
Department's practice of computing a single weighted-average cost for
the entire period). However, the Department recognizes that possible
distortions may result if our normal annual average cost method is used
during a period of significant cost changes. Therefore, the Department
will deviate from its normal methodology of calculating an annual
weighted average cost under certain circumstances.
In determining whether to deviate from our normal methodology of
calculating an annual weighted average cost, the Department evaluates
the case-specific record evidence using two primary factors: (1) the
change in the cost of manufacturing recognized by the
[[Page 33781]]
respondent during the POR must be deemed significant; and, (2) the
record evidence must indicate that sales prices during the shorter
averaging periods could be reasonably linked with the cost of
production (``COP'') or CV during the same shorter averaging periods.
See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of
Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399 ``December 11, 2008) (``SSPC
from Belgium'') and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from
Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 (February
10, 2010) (``S4 from Mexico'').
In this case, we have determined that the record evidence satisfies
these criteria for the pipe and tube products. The record indicates
Toscelik experienced significant changes in the cost of manufacturing
(``COM'') during the POR and that the change in COM is primarily
attributable to the price volatility for coils, which are major inputs
consumed in the production of the merchandise under consideration. See
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. The data show the percentage
difference between the high and low quarterly COM clearly exceeded 25
percent during the POR. Id. Our analysis of the data provided by
Toscelik reveals that during the POR sales and costs were generally
trending in a consistent manner, and also that Toscelik turns over its
inventory relatively quickly. Id. These facts indicate that Toscelik's
costs and sales prices were reasonably correlated during the POR.
Therefore, the Department has used variable costs of manufacture
and total costs of manufacture based on Toscelik's quarterly costs of
production in these preliminary results of review. Specifically, the
Department has conducted the ``below cost'' and ``cost recovery'' tests
using an annual weighted average cost of manufacturing that
incorporates an indexing method that addresses the distortive effect of
the price volatility for costs. For a detailed analysis, see
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
C. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We made
adjustments for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, and
rebates, where appropriate. We made deductions, where appropriate, for
foreign inland freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In
addition, when comparing sales of similar merchandise, we made
adjustments for differences in cost (i.e., DIFMER), where those
differences were attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's
regulations. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances
of sale (``COS'') in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the
Act and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations. We made COS
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. Finally, 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.
D. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV
if we are unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match of
identical or similar merchandise for the U.S. sale. Section 773(e) of
the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of
materials and fabrication employed in making the subject merchandise,
SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. However, as explained
above, for these preliminary results, we did not base NV on CV in any
instances.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the export transaction. The NV LOT is
based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV is
based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and
profit are derived.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer.
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects 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 make a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the
same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar.
Conversely, if a party claims the LOTs are different for different
groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be
dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
Toscelik reported that it sold light-walled rectangular pipe and
tube at only one level of trade in the home market and in the U.S.
market. See Toscelik's Sections B and C Response at pages 23 and 61.
Toscelik identified one channel of distribution for sales in the home
market, ``ex works'' (channel 1) and one channel of distribution in the
U.S. market, ``direct to the importer'' (channel 1). See Toscelik's
Section A Response at page 12 and 13, and Toscelik's Sections B and C
Response at pages 15 and 54. Toscelik also reported that all sales in
the home market were sold to customers within the same customer
category, ``distributors,'' and that all sales in the U.S. were sold to
the same customer category, ``importer.'' See Toscelik's Sections B and
C Response at pages 15 and 53.
Based on our analysis of the record evidence provided by Toscelik,
we preliminarily determine that a single LOT exists in the home market.
Therefore, we have no basis upon which to calculate a level of trade
adjustment. For these reasons, we preliminarily find that a LOT
adjustment is not appropriate for Toscelik.
Moreover, we find that only minor differences exist between the
sole home market channel of distribution and the sole U.S. channel of
distribution, that of Toscelik's EP sales. We obtained information from
Toscelik regarding the marketing stages involved in making its reported
home market and U.S. sales. Toscelik described all selling activities
performed, and provided a table comparing the selling functions
performed among each channel of distribution for both markets. See
Toscelik's Section A response at Exhibit 7. We reviewed the nature of
the selling functions and the intensity to which all selling functions
were performed between Toscelik's EP and home market channels of
distribution and customer categories.
While we found differences in the levels of intensity performed
between the home market and U.S. market channels of distribution for
one of these functions, the ``warranty service'' function, the
difference is minor. Toscelik reported that it performed these
functions in the home market at a level of ``<1'' on a scale of 1 to
10, and not at all in the U.S. market. See Toscelik's Section A
Response at Exhibit 7. Therefore, we find only minor differences exist
between the sole home market channel of distribution and the sole U.S.
channel of distribution, that of Toscelik's EP sales.
The Department has determined that we will find sales to be at the
same LOT when the selling functions performed for each customer class
are sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351.412 (c)(2). We
[[Page 33782]]
find Toscelik performed virtually the same level of customer support
services on its EP sales as it did on its home market sales and that
the minor differences that do exist do not establish distinct and
separate levels of trade.
The record evidence supports a finding that in both markets and in
both channels of distribution Toscelik performs essentially the same
level of services. Therefore, based on our analysis of the selling
functions performed on EP sales in the United States, and its sales in
the home market, we determine that the EP and the starting price of
home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing process,
and are thus at the same LOT.
Currency Conversions
In accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, we made Turkish
lira-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as collected
by Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva) and
as published on the Import Administration's web site (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html).
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period January 30, 2008,
through April 30, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average
Manufacturer / Exporter Margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toscelik............................................ 0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with
section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. An interested party
may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See section
351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to section 351.310(d) of the Department's regulations. Requests should
contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing,
each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised
in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief.
Comments
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; 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. The Department will issue
final results of this administrative review, including the results of
our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or at a
hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the
Department's regulations, the Department will calculate an assessment
rate on all appropriate entries. Toscelik has reported entered values
for all of its sales of subject merchandise to the United States during
the POR. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of the
Department's regulations, we will calculate importer-specific duty
assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will
be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made
during the POR. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by
that importer. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP fifteen days after publication of the
final results of review.
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). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. Id.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for
Toscelik will be the rate established in the final results of review;
2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 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 3) 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 the all-
others rate of 27.04 percent ad valorem from the LTFV investigation.
See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and
Tube From Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 the antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-14371 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S