Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69626-69628 [2010-28685]

Download as PDF 69626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices International Trade Administration Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [A–570–947] Correction Certain Steel Grating From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order On June 8, 2010, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published the final results of the investigation for certain steel grating from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Certain Steel Grating From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 32366 (June 8, 2010) (‘‘Final Determination’’). On July 23, 2010, the Department published the antidumping duty order pursuant to the investigation. See Certain Steel Grating from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 43143 (July 23, 2010) (‘‘Order’’). Subsequent to the announcement and release of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., AGENCY: Final Determination and Order, the Department identified an inadvertent error in both Federal Register notices. Specifically, the Final Determination and Order incorrectly reversed the headings for the ‘‘Manufacturer’’ and ‘‘Exporter’’ in the rate tables printed in the notices. As a result of these errors, the notices incorrectly indicated that a combination rate was applicable to Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo Haitian’’) as the manufacturer and Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd (‘‘Ningbo Lihong’’) as the exporter. See Final Determination, 75 FR at 32369; see also Order, 75 FR at 43144. The notices should have indicated that Ningbo Haitian was the exporter, and that Ningbo Lihong was the manufacturer. The revised rate table should read as follows: Antidumping duty percent margin Exporter Manufacturer Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd ..................................... Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd ........................................ Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ........................................ PRC-wide Entity 1 ....................................................................... Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd .................................... Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd ....................................... Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ....................................... .................................................................................................... 136.76 136.76 136.76 145.18 1 Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong Electronic Equipment Factory and Shanghai DAHE Grating Co., Ltd. are part of the PRC-wide entity. This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: November 8, 2010. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. C1–2010–28688 Filed 11–12–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–502] Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On June 14, 2010, the Department of Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. The period of review is May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. The review covers srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:16 Nov 12, 2010 Jkt 223001 nine manufacturer/exporters. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes for the final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the respondents are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0198 or (202) 482– 1690, respectively. Background On June 14, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 33578 (June 14, 2010) (Preliminary Results). The administrative review covers Jindal Pipes Limited, Lloyds Metals & PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Engineers Limited and Lloyds Line Pipe Ltd. (LMEL/LLPL),1 Lloyds Steel Industries Limited (LSIL), Maharashtra Seamless Limited, Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., Universal Tube and Plastic Ind., Ushdev International Ltd., and Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. Since publishing the Preliminary Results, we extended the due date for completion of these final results from October 12, 2010, to November 5, 2010. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India: Extension of the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 63439 (October 15, 2010). We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We received timely submitted case briefs from LMEL/LLPL and LSIL. We also received a timely submitted case brief from Shamrock Building Materials, Inc., an importer of subject merchandise. Additionally, we received a timely submitted rebuttal case brief from a domestic interested party, Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation. No parties requested a hearing. 1 See memorandum entitled ‘‘Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India—Affiliation and Whether to Collapse Two Separate Entities’’ dated June 7, 2010. E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM 15NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES Scope of the Order The products covered by the order include certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more but not over 16 inches. These products are commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipes and tubes produced to various American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) specifications, most notably A–53, A– 120, or A–135. The antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India, published on May 12, 1986, included standard scope language which used the import classification system as defined by Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated (TSUSA). The United States developed a system of tariff classification based on the international harmonized system of customs nomenclature. On January 1, 1989, the U.S. tariff schedules were fully converted from the TSUSA to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 FR 26650, 26651 (June 10, 1991). As a result of this transition, the scope language we used in the 1991 Federal Register notice is slightly different from the scope language of the original final determination and antidumping duty order. Until January 1, 1989, such merchandise was classifiable under item numbers 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, and 610.4925 of the TSUSA. This merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090. As with the TSUSA numbers, the HTS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive. Duty Absorption As stated in the Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33580, the Department has not conducted a duty-absorption inquiry as requested in this segment of the proceeding because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Department lacks the authority to conduct such inquiries for reviews of transition orders. See FAG Italia S.p.A. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 12, 2010 Jkt 223001 v. United States, 291 F.3d 806, 819 (CAFC 2002). The order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India is a transition order, having gone into effect in 1986. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India for the Period of Review May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009’’ (Decision Memorandum) from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Edward C. Yang, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 5, 2010, and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is in the Decision Memorandum and attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the Department’s Central Records Unit of the main Commerce building, Room 7046, and is accessible on the Internet at http://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on the analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes since the Preliminary Results. Specifically, with respect to sales by LMEL/LLPL to trading companies, for export price we used the whole gross price as reported by LMEL/LLPL. For these sales to trading companies, we did not deduct the trading-company discount from the gross unit price as we did in the Preliminary Results because the trading-company discount represents the difference in price between the value paid for the goods by the trading company and the value that the trading company invoiced the final U.S. customer under LMEL/LLPL’s direction. We did not deduct bank charges from export price for some sales to Indian trading companies because these bank charges were billed to the trading company and not to LMEL/ LLPL. We removed the value of a credit memo from the numerator of the warranty-expense allocation and determined the value of this credit memo to be a post-sale adjustment to export price instead of a warranty expense. For transactions involved in this credit memo we used an average export price that reflects the single per- PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 69627 unit price to which the parties agreed in a renegotiated sales contract. Finally, for the denominator of the warrantyexpense allocation we used the total quantity of sales during the period of review instead of the total quantity of entries. See Decision Memorandum for a full discussion of the issues. Final Results of the Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India for the period May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009: Producer and/or exporter Lloyds Metals & Engineers Limited (LMEL) and Lloyds Line Pipe Ltd. (LLPL) ...................... Lloyds Steel Industries Limited (LSIL) ...................................... Jindal Pipes Limited ................... Maharashtra Seamless Limited .. Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd ............. Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd ..... Universal Tube and Plastic Ind .. Ushdev International Ltd ............ Uttam Galva Steels Ltd .............. Margin (percent) 6.33 (*) 6.33 6.33 (**) 6.33 (*) (**) (**) * No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate from any segment of this proceeding. ** No shipments or sales subject to this review. This company reported that its supplier had knowledge that its merchandise was destined for the United States. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For these final results, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for LMEL/LLPL’s importers or customers by the total number of metric tons LMEL/LLPL sold to the importers or customers. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting permetric-ton dollar amount against each metric ton of merchandise in each importer’s/customer’s entries during the review period. Additionally, because we have collapsed LMEL and LLPL (see Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33581), we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of LLPL-produced merchandise at the LMEL/LLPL rate. The Department clarified its automatic-assessment regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by LMEL/LLPL for which LMEL/LLPL did not know its merchandise was destined E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM 15NON1 69628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries of merchandise produced by LMEL/LLPL at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of Antidumping Duties). Consistent with Assessment of Antidumping Duties, for companies which claimed they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States, i.e., LSIL and Universal Tube and Plastic Ind., if any entries of subject merchandise produced by these entities entered into the United States during the period of review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the unreviewed entries of merchandise at the all-others rate. With respect to entries by companies that were not selected for individual examination, i.e., Jindal Pipes Limited, Maharashtra Seamless Limited, and Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by these firms at 6.33 percent, the rate established for LMEL/LLPL. See Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33579. For companies which reported that their supplier (LMEL) had knowledge that its merchandise was destined for the United States, i.e., Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd., Uttam Galva Steels Ltd., and Ushdev International Ltd., and otherwise had no shipments or sales of their own, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the assessment amounts applicable to LMEL/LLPL as discussed above. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. Cash-Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these final results of administrative review for all shipments of certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates for companies under review will be the rates listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period for that company; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Nov 12, 2010 Jkt 223001 but the manufacturer is, the cashdeposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cashdeposit rate will be the all-others rate for this proceeding, 7.08 percent. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notifications This notice serves as a final 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 Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to 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(a)(3). Timely notification of the 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. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: November 5, 2010. Edward C. Yang, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix 1. Date of Sale 2. Universe of Sales 3. Adjustment to Sales Price 4. Warranty Expense 5. Trading-Company Discount 6. Bank Charges 7. Credit-Expense Period [FR Doc. 2010–28685 Filed 11–12–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–855] Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Order Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on non-frozen apple juice concentrate from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). Because the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review, the Department is revoking this antidumping duty order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On June 5, 2000, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on certain non-frozen apple juice concentrate from the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain NonFrozen Apple Juice Concentrate From the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 35606 (June 5, 2000). On November 2, 2005, the Department published its most recent continuation of the order. See Notice of Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 66349 (November 2, 2005) (‘‘Notice of Continuation’’). On October 1, 2010, the Department initiated a sunset review of this order. See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 60731 (October 1, 2010). We did not receive a notice of intent to participate from domestic interested parties in this sunset review by the deadline date. As a result, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), the Department determined that no domestic interested party intends to participate in the sunset review, and on October 21, 2010, we notified the International Trade Commission, in writing, that we intended to issue a final determination revoking this E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM 15NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69626-69628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28685]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-502]


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On June 14, 2010, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from 
India. The period of review is May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009. We 
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary 
results. The review covers nine manufacturer/exporters. Based on our 
analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes for the 
final results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the 
respondents are listed below in the ``Final Results of the Review'' 
section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Romani or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0198 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

Background

    On June 14, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes 
and tubes from India. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes 
and Tubes from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 33578 (June 14, 2010) (Preliminary 
Results). The administrative review covers Jindal Pipes Limited, Lloyds 
Metals & Engineers Limited and Lloyds Line Pipe Ltd. (LMEL/LLPL),\1\ 
Lloyds Steel Industries Limited (LSIL), Maharashtra Seamless Limited, 
Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd., Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., Universal Tube 
and Plastic Ind., Ushdev International Ltd., and Uttam Galva Steels 
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See memorandum entitled ``Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Standard Pipes and Tubes From India--Affiliation and Whether to 
Collapse Two Separate Entities'' dated June 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since publishing the Preliminary Results, we extended the due date 
for completion of these final results from October 12, 2010, to 
November 5, 2010. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and 
Tubes from India: Extension of the Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 63439 (October 15, 2010).
    We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary 
Results. We received timely submitted case briefs from LMEL/LLPL and 
LSIL. We also received a timely submitted case brief from Shamrock 
Building Materials, Inc., an importer of subject merchandise. 
Additionally, we received a timely submitted rebuttal case brief from a 
domestic interested party, Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation. No 
parties requested a hearing.

[[Page 69627]]

    We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with 
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order include certain welded carbon 
steel standard pipes and tubes with an outside diameter of 0.375 inch 
or more but not over 16 inches. These products are commonly referred to 
in the industry as standard pipes and tubes produced to various 
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) specifications, most 
notably A-53, A-120, or A-135.
    The antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard 
pipes and tubes from India, published on May 12, 1986, included 
standard scope language which used the import classification system as 
defined by Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated (TSUSA). 
The United States developed a system of tariff classification based on 
the international harmonized system of customs nomenclature. On January 
1, 1989, the U.S. tariff schedules were fully converted from the TSUSA 
to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). See, e.g., Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 FR 26650, 26651 (June 
10, 1991). As a result of this transition, the scope language we used 
in the 1991 Federal Register notice is slightly different from the 
scope language of the original final determination and antidumping duty 
order.
    Until January 1, 1989, such merchandise was classifiable under item 
numbers 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 
610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, and 610.4925 of the TSUSA. This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS item numbers 
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 
7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090. As with the TSUSA numbers, the HTS numbers 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product 
description remains dispositive.

Duty Absorption

    As stated in the Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33580, the 
Department has not conducted a duty-absorption inquiry as requested in 
this segment of the proceeding because the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit held that the Department lacks the authority to conduct 
such inquiries for reviews of transition orders. See FAG Italia S.p.A. 
v. United States, 291 F.3d 806, 819 (CAFC 2002). The order on certain 
welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India is a transition 
order, having gone into effect in 1986.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India for the Period 
of Review May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009'' (Decision Memorandum) 
from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Edward C. Yang, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
November 5, 2010, and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the 
issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded is in 
the Decision Memorandum and attached to this notice as an Appendix. The 
Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit of the main Commerce building, Room 
7046, and is accessible on the Internet at http://trade.gov/ia. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes since the Preliminary Results. Specifically, with respect to 
sales by LMEL/LLPL to trading companies, for export price we used the 
whole gross price as reported by LMEL/LLPL. For these sales to trading 
companies, we did not deduct the trading-company discount from the 
gross unit price as we did in the Preliminary Results because the 
trading-company discount represents the difference in price between the 
value paid for the goods by the trading company and the value that the 
trading company invoiced the final U.S. customer under LMEL/LLPL's 
direction. We did not deduct bank charges from export price for some 
sales to Indian trading companies because these bank charges were 
billed to the trading company and not to LMEL/LLPL. We removed the 
value of a credit memo from the numerator of the warranty-expense 
allocation and determined the value of this credit memo to be a post-
sale adjustment to export price instead of a warranty expense. For 
transactions involved in this credit memo we used an average export 
price that reflects the single per-unit price to which the parties 
agreed in a renegotiated sales contract. Finally, for the denominator 
of the warranty-expense allocation we used the total quantity of sales 
during the period of review instead of the total quantity of entries. 
See Decision Memorandum for a full discussion of the issues.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist on certain welded 
carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from India for the period May 1, 
2008, through April 30, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                  Producer and/or exporter                    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyds Metals & Engineers Limited (LMEL) and Lloyds Line           6.33
 Pipe Ltd. (LLPL)..........................................
Lloyds Steel Industries Limited (LSIL).....................         (*)
Jindal Pipes Limited.......................................        6.33
Maharashtra Seamless Limited...............................        6.33
Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd....................................        (**)
Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd.................................        6.33
Universal Tube and Plastic Ind.............................         (*)
Ushdev International Ltd...................................        (**)
Uttam Galva Steels Ltd.....................................       (**)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no
  individual rate from any segment of this proceeding.
** No shipments or sales subject to this review. This company reported
  that its supplier had knowledge that its merchandise was destined for
  the United States.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    For these final results, we divided the total dumping margins 
(calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) 
for LMEL/LLPL's importers or customers by the total number of metric 
tons LMEL/LLPL sold to the importers or customers. We will direct CBP 
to assess the resulting per-metric-ton dollar amount against each 
metric ton of merchandise in each importer's/customer's entries during 
the review period. Additionally, because we have collapsed LMEL and 
LLPL (see Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33581), we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate entries of LLPL-produced merchandise at the LMEL/LLPL rate.
    The Department clarified its automatic-assessment regulation on May 
6, 2003. This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise 
during the period of review produced by LMEL/LLPL for which LMEL/LLPL 
did not know its merchandise was destined

[[Page 69628]]

for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate unreviewed entries of merchandise produced by LMEL/LLPL at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this 
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties).
    Consistent with Assessment of Antidumping Duties, for companies 
which claimed they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States, i.e., LSIL and Universal Tube and Plastic Ind., if any 
entries of subject merchandise produced by these entities entered into 
the United States during the period of review, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate the unreviewed entries of merchandise at the all-others rate.
    With respect to entries by companies that were not selected for 
individual examination, i.e., Jindal Pipes Limited, Maharashtra 
Seamless Limited, and Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by these 
firms at 6.33 percent, the rate established for LMEL/LLPL. See 
Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33579.
    For companies which reported that their supplier (LMEL) had 
knowledge that its merchandise was destined for the United States, 
i.e., Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd., Uttam Galva Steels Ltd., and Ushdev 
International Ltd., and otherwise had no shipments or sales of their 
own, we will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the assessment 
amounts applicable to LMEL/LLPL as discussed above.
    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 
days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results of administrative review for all 
shipments of certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes from 
India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates for companies under review will be the 
rates listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period for that 
company; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 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; (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the all-others rate for this proceeding, 7.08 
percent. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986). These 
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notifications

    This notice serves as a final 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to 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(a)(3). Timely notification of the 
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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: November 5, 2010.
Edward C. Yang,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

1. Date of Sale
2. Universe of Sales
3. Adjustment to Sales Price
4. Warranty Expense
5. Trading-Company Discount
6. Bank Charges
7. Credit-Expense Period

[FR Doc. 2010-28685 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P