Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69626-69628 [2010-28685]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://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
