Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 33779-33782 [2010-14371]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[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 (https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/).

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