Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part, 57449-57456 [2010-23549]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57449-57456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23549]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-956]


Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 
Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has determined 
that certain seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and 
pressure pipe from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'')

[[Page 57450]]

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value (``LTFV'') as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''). The final dumping margins for this 
investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section 
below. The period covered by the investigation is January 1, 2009, 
through June 30, 2009 (the ``POI'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Howard Smith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4162 and 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register its preliminary 
determination of sales at LTFV on April 28, 2010.\1\ The Department 
published in the Federal Register its amended preliminary determination 
of sales at LTFV on May 28, 2010, after identifying and correcting 
certain ministerial errors.\2\ Between May 10, 2010, and May 14, 2010, 
the Department conducted a verification of Hengyang Steel Tube Group 
Int'l Trading Inc., and its affiliates Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., 
Ltd., and Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd., (collectively, Hengyang) 
at its facilities in Hengyang City, China. Between May 17, 2010, and 
May 26, 2010, the Department conducted a verification of Tianjin Pipe 
(Group) Corporation and Tianjin Pipe International Economic Trading 
Corporation (collectively, TPCO) at its facilities in Tianjin City, 
China. Between June 7, 2010, and June 9, 2010, the Department conducted 
a verification of TPCO Enterprise Inc. (``TEI''), an affiliate of TPCO, 
at its facilities in Houston, Texas. See the ``Verification'' section 
of this notice below for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 
and Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 22372 (April 28, 2010) 
(``Preliminary Determination'').
    \2\ See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 
and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Amended 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 75 FR 
29972 (May 28, 2010) (``Amended Preliminary Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 24, 2010, Salem Steel North America LLC (Salem Steel), a 
U.S. importer of cold drawn seamless mechanical tubing, submitted a 
request to the Department that it reconsider its preliminary decision 
to include cold drawn mechanical tubing within the scope of the 
antidumping duty investigation. On May 27, 2010, Petitioners,\3\ Salem 
Steel and a number of other importers and end-users of mechanical 
tubing met with Department officials to discuss the May 24, 2010, 
submission filed by Salem Steel. Subsequently, a number of interested 
parties filed comments regarding excluding mechanical tubing from the 
scope of the investigation. Additionally, on July 2, 2010, Petitioners 
submitted a request to the Department that it exclude from the scope 
seamless pipe made to the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(``ASTM'') A-335 specification. The Department has issued proposed 
modifications to the scope language addressing mechanical tubing and 
pipe meeting the ASTM A-335 specification and interested parties have 
commented on the proposed modifications. See the ``Scope Comments'' 
section of this notice below for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Petitioners are United States Steel Corporation, V&M Star 
L.P, TMK IPSCO, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union (hereinafter, ``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 9, 2010, Mr. Daniel Porter of Winston Strawn LLP, counsel 
to TPCO, submitted an affidavit in response to the Department's 
verification report. The Department subsequently rejected the affidavit 
because it contained untimely new factual information and Mr. Porter 
resubmitted the affidavit on July 22, 2010. The Department responded to 
the affidavit on August 16, 2010. United States Steel Corporation and 
TPCO filed comments regarding the Department's response to the 
affidavit on August 18, 2010. United States Steel Corporation filed 
rebuttal comments on August 20, 2010. See the ``Verification'' section 
of this notice below for additional information.
    On June 7, 2010, Petitioners, Hengyang, and TPCO filed surrogate 
value information. On June 17, 2010, Petitioners filed rebuttal 
surrogate value information.
    In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the 
Preliminary Determination and Amended Preliminary Determination, on 
July 14, 2010, Petitioners, Hengyang, TPCO, Salem Steel North America 
LLC (``Salem Steel''), Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. (``TAI'') and MC 
Tubular Products, Inc. (``MC Tubular'') filed case briefs. Petitioners, 
Hengyang, TPCO and the Government of China filed rebuttal briefs on 
July 21, 2010, and TPCO's rebuttal brief was resubmitted on July 26, 
2010.
    On July 16, 2010, the Department placed additional data on the 
record of the investigation and notified interested parties that it 
would be reconsidering its valuation of the labor wage rate in this 
investigation as a result of the recent decision in Dorbest Limited et 
al. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Dorbest) issued 
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC'') on May 14, 2010.\4\ The Department invited interested 
parties to comment on the narrow issue of the labor wage rate in light 
of the CAFC's decision. On July 21, 2010, TPCO and United States Steel 
Corporation submitted comments on the export data. On August 10, 2010, 
the Department released additional information relating to the wage 
rate to interested parties.\5\ United States Steel Corporation 
submitted comments on the additional information on August 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to The File, through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Data on Labor 
Wage,'' dated July 16, 2010.
    \5\ See Memorandum to The File, through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Honduras Data on 
Labor Wage Rate,'' dated August 10, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All of the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted 
in this investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Determination'' dated September 10, 2010, 
which is hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum''). Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the issues 
addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (``CRU'') at the Main Commerce Building, Room 
7046, and is accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the 
following changes to our preliminary determination. The following 
changes have been made to surrogate values: (1) We calculated financial 
ratios based on data contained within the financial statements of 
Jindal Steel & Power, Ltd., Oil Country Tubular Ltd., and Lloyds Line 
Pipe, Ltd. (see Comment 6 in the Issues and Decision Memorandum); (2) 
we valued steel billets using Indonesian

[[Page 57451]]

World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') import data under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (``HTS'') number 7201.20.100 (see Comment 7 in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum); (3) we valued iron ore using the simple average 
of iron ore lump prices from the financial statements of Kirloskar 
Ferrous Industries, Limited and KIOCL, Limited (see Comment 9 in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum); (4) we valued compressed air based on 
the value of electricity used to generate the air (see Comment 14 in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum); (5) we revised our calculation of 
the value of labor (see Comment 5 in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum); and (6) we valued calcium silicide (Si Ca cable and 
SICAWIRE) using HTS number 2850.00.41 (see Comment 12 in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum).
    The following TPCO-specific changes have been made: (1) We have not 
granted TPCO a by-product offset for electricity (see Comment 26 in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum); (2) as partial adverse facts available 
(``AFA''), we assigned each model (control number (CONNUM)) of seamless 
pipe sold by TPCO to the United States during the POI the highest 
purchased-billet consumption quantity reported by TPCO (see Comment 16 
in the Issues and Decision Memorandum); (3) we updated the AFA rate 
applied to TPCO's downstream sales to reflect the highest CONNUM-
specific dumping margin calculated for TPCO (see Comment 17 in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum); (4) we calculated a value for 
compressed air in TPCO's margin program (see Comment 14 in the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum); (5) as partial AFA, we based the consumption 
quantity for steel strap on the average of the three highest usage 
rates for steel strap reflected in Hengyang's factors of production 
(``FOP'') database (see Comment 27 in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum); (6) we deducted inland freight insurance from TPCO's 
reported U.S. prices (see Comment 23 in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum); (7) we valued steel scrap based on both market economy 
prices and a surrogate value based on WTA Indian import data (see 
Comment 19 in the Issues and Decision Memorandum); (8) we reduced 
TPCO's reported by-product offset for steel scrap by the quantity of 
further processed steel scrap for which TPCO never reported the inputs 
used for further processing (see Comment 20 in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum); (9) we corrected the conversion factor for argon gas (see 
Comment 24 in the Issues and Decision Memorandum); and (10) we added 
truck freight to TPCO's cost of manufacturing to account for TPCO's 
costs associated with transporting semi-finished pipes for further 
processing (see Comment 21 in the Issues and Decision Memorandum).
    The following Hengyang-specific changes have been made: (1) We 
adjusted the market-economy and non-market economy (``NME'') 
percentages of pig iron purchased (see Comment 33 in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum); (2) we did not value dolomite and dolomite powder 
(see Comment 13 in the Issues and Decision Memorandum); and (3) we made 
several corrections to the Preliminary Determination margin calculation 
program (see Hengyang Analysis Memorandum).

Scope Comments

    As noted above, on May 24, 2010, Salem Steel, submitted comments on 
the scope of this investigation. Salem requested that the Department 
amend the scope of this investigation to exclude cold drawn seamless 
mechanical tubing (``mechanical tubing''). On May 27, 2010, 
Petitioners, Salem Steel and a number of other importers and end-users 
of mechanical tubing met with Department officials to discuss the May 
24, 2010, submission filed by Salem Steel. On June 4, 2010, Salem Steel 
submitted proposed scope language to exclude mechanical tubing from the 
scope of the investigation. On June 8, 2010, MC Tubular Products, Inc. 
(``MC Tubular'') and Toyota Tsusho America, Inc. (``TAI'') submitted 
comments supporting Salem's proposed scope exclusion language. On June 
23, 2010, the Department issued a proposed scope modification to 
interested parties and requested comments.\6\ Specifically, the 
Department's proposed scope modification language excluded ``all 
mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when 
such products conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e., outside 
diameter and wall thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or APL 5L 
specifications.'' \7\ On June 30, 2010, TAI, MC Tubular and Salem Steel 
submitted comments supporting the exclusion of mechanical tubing from 
the scope of the investigation and providing suggestions for additional 
modifications to the scope of the investigation. Primarily parties' 
comments involved modifying the language so that all forms of 
mechanical tubing, regardless of whether they conform to the 
dimensional requirements of certain seamless pipe specifications, are 
excluded from the scope. On July 2, 2010, Petitioners submitted a 
request that the Department exclude from the scope seamless pipe 
produced to the ASTM A-335 specification. On August 19, 2010, the 
Department issued an additional proposed scope modification which 
excludes all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM A-335 
whether finished or unfinished. On August 23, 2010, TAI submitted 
comments supporting the Department's proposed exclusion of ASTM A-335. 
After considering parties' comments, the Department has determined to 
remove ASTM A-335 from the list of covered specifications included 
within the scope of this investigation, and include the following 
exclusion language in the scope:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter to Interested Parties, Regarding the 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Seamless Carbon and 
Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated June 23, 2010.
    \7\ Id.

    Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations 
are: (1) All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing 
specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of 
ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached 
couplings. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are 
all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except 
when such products conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e., 
outside diameter and wall thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or API 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5L specifications.

See Comment 1 of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
additional information.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is certain seamless 
carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw 
hollows, less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside 
diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (e.g., 
hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, 
upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish (e.g., 
bare, lacquered or coated). Redraw hollows are any unfinished carbon or 
alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipe or ``hollow profiles'' 
suitable for cold finishing operations, such as cold drawing, to meet 
the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') or American 
Petroleum Institute (``API'') specifications referenced below, or 
comparable specifications. Specifically included within the scope are 
seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) standard, 
line, and pressure pipes produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-
333,

[[Page 57452]]

ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, ASTM A-1024, and the API 5L 
specifications, or comparable specifications, and meeting the physical 
parameters described above, regardless of application, with the 
exception of the exclusion discussed below.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) 
All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing 
specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM 
A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached couplings. 
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all mechanical, 
boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products 
conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 
wall thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or API 5L specifications.
    The merchandise covered by the investigation is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 
7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.6050, 
7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 
7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 
7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 
7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 
7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 
7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 
7304.59.8070.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to 
this scope is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted 
verifications of Hengyang, TPCO, and TEI.\8\ In conducting the 
verifications, we used standard verification procedures, including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as 
original source documents provided by Hengyang, TPCO, and TEI. As noted 
above, on July 9, 2010, Mr. Daniel Porter of Winston Strawn LLP, 
counsel to TPCO, submitted an affidavit in response to the Department's 
verification report concerning TPCO, addressing the ratio TPCO 
calculated to distinguish between self-produced and purchased billets, 
as well as the Department's verification findings regarding certain 
market economy purchases of steel scrap. Specifically, Mr. Porter 
alleged that, at verification, the Department refused to accept a 
corrected chart and support documentation that revised its ratio of 
self-produced and purchased billets and erred in finding that TPCO's 
market economy purchases of steel scrap were less than the Department's 
33 percent threshold for using a market economy price to value all of 
the input. The Department requested that Mr. Porter resubmit this 
affidavit to omit certain untimely new factual information; Mr. Porter 
complied and resubmitted the affidavit on July 22, 2010. On August 16, 
2010, the Department issued a memorandum in response to Mr. Porter's 
affidavit. Specifically, the Department stated that it would not have 
accepted such information at verification because it would have been 
considered new information. On August 18, 2010, Petitioners submitted 
comments supporting the Department's response. On August 18, 2010, TPCO 
submitted comments contesting the facts in the Department's memorandum 
and arguing that the Department should have accepted its revisions and 
that information on the record prior to verification would have 
supported its ratio revisions. On August 20, 2010, Petitioners 
submitted comments arguing that TPCO's data for its consumption of 
steel billets could not be verified. See Comment 16 of the accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Department's verification reports for Hengyang and 
TPCO, both on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to section 773(c) of the 
Act, we selected India as the appropriate surrogate country because it 
is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, and 
because it is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to 
subject merchandise. Additionally, we determined that reliable Indian 
data for valuing FOPs are readily available.\9\ No party has commented 
on our selection of India as the appropriate surrogate country. We 
continue to find India to be the appropriate surrogate country in this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 22376-22377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME 
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 CFR 
351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that TPCO, Hengyang, 
Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Xigang''), Jiangyin City 
Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel 
Co., Ltd., Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd., and Yangzhou Chengde 
Steel Tube Co., Ltd., demonstrated their eligibility for, and were 
hence assigned, separate rate status. No party has commented on the 
eligibility of these companies for separate rate status. For the final 
determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the 
record of this investigation by these companies demonstrates both a de 
jure and de facto absence of government control with respect to their 
exports of the merchandise under investigation and that these companies 
are thus eligible for separate rate status.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 22377-22378.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Critical Circumstances

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that, 
in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, critical circumstances 
exist with respect to Hengyang and the PRC-wide entity but not for TPCO 
or the separate rate companies, including Xigang. After the Preliminary 
Determination, TPCO and Hengyang placed additional shipment data on the 
record for use in the Department's critical circumstances analysis. 
Furthermore, Hengyang contended that the Department must revisit its 
critical circumstances analysis using Hengyang's final antidumping duty 
margin. We have examined the additional shipment information placed on 
the record, as adjusted for verification findings, and reviewed 
Hengyang's final antidumping margin and, for the final determination, 
we continue to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to 
Hengyang and the PRC-wide entity but

[[Page 57453]]

not for TPCO or the separate rate companies, including Xigang.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department considered certain 
non-responsive PRC producers/exporters to be part of the PRC-wide 
entity because they did not respond to our requests for information and 
did not demonstrate that they operated free of government control over 
their export activities.\12\ No additional information regarding these 
entities has been placed on the record since the publication of the 
Preliminary Determination. Since the PRC-wide entity did not provide 
the Department with requested information, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we continue to find it appropriate to base the 
PRC-wide rate on facts otherwise available. Moreover, given that the 
PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, we 
continue to find that it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information. Thus, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, and consistent with the Department's practice, we 
have continued to use an adverse inference in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id., 75 FR at 22379-22380.
    \13\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 
2000) (where the Department applied an adverse inference in 
determining the Russia-wide rate); Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artists Canvas from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 16116, 16118-19 (March 30, 2006) (where the 
Department applied an adverse inference in determining the PRC-wide 
rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may select, 
as AFA, information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final 
determination from the LTFV investigation; (3) a previous 
administrative review; or (4) any other information placed on the 
record. To induce respondents to provide the Department with complete 
and accurate information in a timely manner, the Department's practice 
is to select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) The highest margin alleged in 
the petition; or (b) the highest calculated rate for any respondent in 
the investigation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From 
the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to government control and only the exporters 
listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below have 
overcome that presumption, consistent with the Department's practice, 
we are applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to 
all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, other than the 
exporters listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section of this 
notice.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of China; 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 
FR 25706 (May 3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all exporters 
of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the presumption that the 
export activities of the companies that failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire were controlled by the PRC government).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information, rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available (``FA''), it must, to the 
extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent 
sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described 
in the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') as ``information 
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or 
review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any 
previous review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject 
merchandise.''\16\ The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means 
simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value.\17\ The SAA also states 
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\18\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SAA, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870.
    \17\ See id.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As total AFA, the Department preliminarily selected the rate of 
98.37 percent from the ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping 
Duties: Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 
Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China,'' dated September 
16, 2009 (``Petition''). In the Preliminary Determination, we 
preliminarily found the rate of 98.37 percent to be the highest 
Petition margin that could be corroborated within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act. For the final determination, we find that 
this rate, as adjusted to reflect the CAFC's decision in Dorbest 
(98.74), is within the range of CONNUM-specific margins calculated for 
the mandatory respondents in this proceeding. Therefore, we consider 
the rate to have probative value. See Hengyang and TPCO Analysis 
Memoranda. Therefore, we continue to find that the margin based on the 
petition has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 
98.74 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of 
the Act.

Partial AFA for TPCO

    As in the Preliminary Determination, the Department has continued 
to apply partial AFA with respect to the unreported downstream sales of 
TPCO's U.S. affiliate which TPCO failed to timely submit to the 
Department. Because this information is not on the record and TPCO 
significantly impeded this proceeding by its failure to timely submit 
the information, we have continued to rely upon the FA with respect to 
the unreported sales pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(C) of the 
Act. Further, because the Department finds that TPCO failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, the Department has determined to use an adverse inference when 
applying FA in this investigation. As partial AFA, the Department is 
applying to the unreported sales the highest control number-specific 
dumping margin calculated for TPCO. For further details, see Comment 17 
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
    Also, the Department finds that the correct ratios of purchased and 
self-produced billets which TPCO used to produce subject merchandise 
are not on the record because the information regarding these ratios 
that was provided by TPCO could not be verified, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(1) and (2)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is using 
FA. Moreover, because the Department finds that TPCO failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to use an adverse 
inference when applying partial facts available. As partial AFA,

[[Page 57454]]

the Department is using the highest purchased billet usage rate of any 
CONNUM sold to the United States during the POI, reported in TPCO's FOP 
database, as the usage rate for purchased steel billets for all other 
CONNUMs. For further details, see Comment 16 of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.
    In addition, the Department finds that necessary information is not 
on the record to determine TPCO's steel strap usage because TPCO did 
not report its steel strap usage by the deadline established by the 
Department, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2)(B) of the Act. Thus, 
the Department has determined to use FA. Moreover, because the 
Department finds that TPCO failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to report steel strap usage, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to use an adverse 
inference when applying partial facts available. As partial AFA, we 
have assigned the average of the two highest consumption rates for 
steel strap provided on the record of this investigation by Hengyang, 
the other mandatory respondent in this investigation, to all CONNUMs 
reported in TPCO's FOP database. For further details, see Comment 27 of 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\20\ This practice is described in 
Department Policy Bulletin 05.1, ``Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries,'' which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 
and Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 52744, 52748 (October 14, 
2009) (``Initiation Notice'').

    {W{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its {non-market economy{time}  investigations will be 
specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the 
period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated 
for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject 
merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice 
applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually 
calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 
firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated 
rates. This practice is referred to as the application of 
``combination rates'' because such rates apply to specific 
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 can be found on the Import 
Administration Web site at the following address: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the period January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                   Exporter & producer                    average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading                    48.99
 Corporation............................................
    Produced by: Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation.......
Hengyang Steel Tube Group Int'l Trading Inc.............           82.03
    Produced by: Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd.,
     and Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd...............
Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd.....................           65.51
    Produced by: Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd.,
     and Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd............
Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd............           65.51
    Produced by: Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe
     Co., Ltd...........................................
Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.............           65.51
    Produced by: Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co.,
     Ltd................................................
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd....................           65.51
    Produced by: Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd...
Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd....................           65.51
    Produced by: Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd...
PRC-Wide Rate...........................................           98.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five 
days of the date of public announcement of this determination in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, and consistent 
with our finding of critical circumstances with respect to Hengyang and 
the PRC-wide entity, pursuant to section 733(e)(2) of the Act, the 
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain seamless 
carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from the PRC, 
as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 28, 2010, 
which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. However, because we have 
determined that critical circumstances does not exist for TPCO or the 
separate rate companies (including Xigang), we will instruct CBP to 
continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of the merchandise under 
consideration from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
the consumption on or after April 28, 2010, the date of publication of 
the Preliminary Determination.

[[Page 57455]]

    Additionally, the Department determined in its final determination 
for the companion countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation that 
TPCO's and Hengyang's merchandise benefited from export subsidies.\22\ 
Therefore, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of 
a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value 
exceeds U.S. price for TPCO and Hengyang, as indicated above, minus the 
amount determined to constitute an export subsidy.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 
and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, dated concurrently 
with this notice.
    \23\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 67306, 
67307 (November 17, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the companies other than TPCO and Hengyang that are 
receiving a separate rate, we have applied to these companies the 
average of the rates calculated for TPCO and Hengyang. In the companion 
CVD investigation, the Department found that TPCO's and Hengyang's 
merchandise benefited from export subsidies during the POI, and, 
consequently all other exporters (besides TPCO and Hengyang) were found 
to have benefited from export subsidies based upon TPCO's and 
Hengyang's results. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by 
which normal value exceeds U.S. price for TPCO and Hengyang, as 
indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export 
subsidy.
    With respect to the PRC-wide entity, as AFA, we applied the highest 
rate from the Petition, as adjusted to reflect the CAFC's decision in 
Dorbest, that we were able to corroborate. See the Corroboration 
section above.

Cash Deposit

    The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin amount 
by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate 
for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will 
be the rate the Department has determined in this final determination; 
(2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide 
entity rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the 
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or 
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 
45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that 
material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 10, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Comment 1: Scope Issues
Comment 2: Double Remedy
Comment 3: Zeroing
Comment 4: Whether to Deduct Chinese VAT from U.S. Price
Comment 5: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Labor
Comment 6: The Appropriate Financial Statements
Comment 7: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Steel Billets
Comment 8: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Pig Iron
Comment 9: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Iron Ore and Iron Powder
Comment 10: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Oxygen and Nitrogen
Comment 11: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Medium Chromium
Comment 12: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for SiCa Cable
Comment 13: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Dolomite and Dolomite 
Powder
Comment 14: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Compressed Air
Comment 15: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Steam Coal
Comment 16: Whether to Apply AFA Because of Errors in the FOP Database
Comment 17: Whether TPCO is Affiliated with One of its U.S. Customers 
and Whether AFA or Partial AFA Should be Applied Because of Unreported 
Downstream Sales
Comment 18: Whether Targeted Dumping Exists
Comment 19: Whether Market Economy Purchase Prices Should be Used to 
Value Steel Scrap
Comment 20: Whether to Disallow a By-Product Offset for Steel Scrap
Comment 21: Calculating Freight Expenses for Transporting Pipe for 
Further Processing
Comment 22: Whether Certain Materials are Inputs or Overhead
Comment 23: Whether to Deduct Domestic Inland Insurance from the U.S. 
Price
Comment 24: Whether to Correct the Conversion Factor for Argon
Comment 25: Whether to Calculate a Factor for Pipeline Transmission
Comment 26: Whether to Disallow a By-Product Offset for Electricity
Comment 27: Whether to Apply Partial AFA to Unreported Steel Strap
Comment 28: Whether to Deduct Warranty Expenses from the U.S. Price
Comment 29: Whether to Deduct Unreported Stevedoring Expenses from the 
U.S. Price
Comment 30: Whether the 33 Percent Threshold Test is Appropriate When 
Deciding to Use Market Economy Purchase Prices
Comment 31: Whether the Ratio for Pig Iron was Calculated Correctly
Comment 32: Whether Freight Cost Should be Added to TPCO's Consumption 
of Water
Comment 33: Pig Iron Market Economy Purchases

[[Page 57456]]

Comment 34: Export Price Sales Classification to a U.S. Customer
Comment 35: Steel Scrap Offset
Comment 36: By-product Offset for the Recovery of Blast Furnace Gas
Comment 37: Whether Hengyang Failed to Report Certain Alloying 
Materials
Comment 38: Treating Certain Ancillary Materials as Inputs
Comment 39: Application of Certain Adjustment to the Factors for 
Sintered Iron Ore
Comment 40: Critical Circumstances
[FR Doc. 2010-23549 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P