Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77838-77847 [2010-31368]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77838-77847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded 
non-alloy steel pipe (``CWP'') from the Republic of Korea (``Korea''). 
The period of review (``POR'') is November 1, 2008, through October 31, 
2009. This review covers multiple exporters/producers, three of which 
are being individually reviewed as mandatory respondents. We 
preliminarily determine the mandatory respondents made sales of the 
subject merchandise at prices below normal value (``NV''). We have 
assigned the remaining respondents the weighted-average of the margins 
calculated for the mandatory respondents. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'')

[[Page 77839]]

to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: December 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Montoro, Matthew Jordan, or 
Joshua Morris, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0238, (202) 482-1540, or (202) 482-1779, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 2, 1992, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on CWP from Korea. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 
(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and Amendment to Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel 
Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) (``CWP Order'').
    On November 30, 2009, SeAH Steel Corporation (``SeAH'') timely 
requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CWP 
from Korea for the period November 1, 2008, through October 31, 2009. 
Also on November 30, 2009, Wheatland Tube Company (``Wheatland'') and 
United States Steel Corporation (``U.S. Steel''), manufacturers of the 
domestic like product, also timely requested a review. U.S. Steel 
requested the Department conduct an administrative review of the 
following producers/exporters of subject merchandise: SeAH; Hyundai 
HYSCO; Husteel Co., Ltd. (``Husteel''); Nexteel Co., Ltd. 
(``Nexteel''); Kumkang Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Kumkang''); and A-JU 
Besteel Co., Ltd. Wheatland requested the Department conduct an 
administrative review of SeAH. On December 23, 2009, the Department 
published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on CWP from Korea. See Initiation of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for 
Revocation in Part, 74 FR 68229 (December 23, 2009) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
    On January 26, 2010, SeAH withdrew its request for review. On March 
23, 2010, Wheatland withdrew its request for a review of SeAH.
    In our initiation notice, we indicated that we would select 
mandatory respondents for review based upon CBP data, and that we would 
limit the respondents selected for individual review in accordance with 
section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). 
See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 68229. On January 6, 2010, we received 
comments on the issue of respondent selection from Kumkang.
    On February 18, 2010, after considering the resources available to 
the Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine 
all producers/exporters of subject merchandise for which a review was 
requested. As a result, we selected the two largest producers/exporters 
of CWP from Korea during the POR for individual review in this segment 
of this proceeding, pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. These 
mandatory respondents were Nexteel and SeAH. See Memorandum from Yasmin 
Nair and Matthew Jordan, International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, ``Respondent Selection: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 
Republic of Korea,'' dated February 18, 2010.
    On January 14, 2010, Wheatland submitted a request for a duty 
absorption determination for a number of producers or exporters subject 
to this review, including SeAH, Husteel, and Nexteel. The Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Department lacks 
authority to conduct two-and four-year duty absorption inquiries for 
transitional orders (orders in effect before January 1, 1995). See FAG 
Italia S.p.A. v. United States, 291 F.3d 806, 819 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 
Since the order for this case is from 1992, we have not conducted a 
duty absorption inquiry in this proceeding.
    On January 15, 2010, and January 22, 2010, Hyundai HYSCO submitted 
letters to the Department stating it had no exports, sales, or entries 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
    On February 19, 2010, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to 
Nexteel and SeAH. On March 9, 2010, Husteel requested the Department to 
reconsider its decision to limit the review to two mandatory 
respondents or, in the alternate, to treat Husteel as a voluntary 
respondent. On March 25, 2010, we received a section A questionnaire 
response from Husteel (``Husteel A QR''). On March 26, 2010, we 
received a section A questionnaire response from SeAH (``SeAH A QR''). 
On March 29, 2010, we received a section A questionnaire response from 
Nexteel (``Nexteel A QR'').
    On March 29, 2010, we selected Husteel as a third mandatory 
respondent. See March 29, 2010 letter from Susan Kuhbach, Director, 
Office of AD/CVD Operations 1, to Husteel Co., Ltd., ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 
Republic of Korea: Request for Selection as Mandatory Respondent; 
Request for Voluntary Respondent Treatment.'' See also Memorandum from 
Matthew Jordan, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 1, AD/
CVD Operations, to the File, ``Selection of Husteel Co., Ltd., as Third 
Mandatory Respondent,'' dated March 30, 2010.
    We received a response to sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire 
from SeAH on April 12, 2010. We received a response to sections B, C, 
and D of the questionnaire from Husteel on April 21, 2010. We received 
a response to sections B and C of the questionnaire from Nexteel on 
April 27, 2010 (``Nexteel B&C QR'').
    On June 17, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire regarding section D of the initial questionnaire to 
Husteel and received a response on July 22, 2010. On July 7, 2010, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding section D of 
the initial questionnaire to SeAH and received a response on August 4, 
2010.
    On September 27, 2010, we issued supplemental questionnaires for 
sections A, B, and C to Nexteel, Husteel, and SeAH. We received a 
response from SeAH on October 26, 2010, and responses from Nexteel and 
Husteel on November 2, 2010 (``Husteel November Supplemental 
Response'').
    On October 11, 2010, the Department issued a second supplemental 
questionnaire for section D to SeAH. We received a response from SeAH 
on October 21, 2010.
    On November 5, 2010, the Department issued second supplemental 
questionnaires for sections A, B, and C to Husteel and SeAH. The 
Department received responses from SeAH and Husteel on November 12, 
2010.
    On November 12, 2010, the Department issued a third supplemental 
questionnaire for sections A, B, and C to SeAH. The Department received 
a response from SeAH on November 19, 2010.
    On July 13, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an extension of the time limit for the completion of the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than December 7, 2010, in 
accordance with section

[[Page 77840]]

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Circular Welded 
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 39917 (July 13, 2010).

Hyundai HYSCO

    On January 15, 2010, Hyundai HYSCO submitted a letter indicating 
that it made no sales to the United States during the POR. We have not 
received any comments on Hyundai HYSCO's submission. In response to the 
Department's inquiry to CBP, CBP data showed entries for consumption of 
subject merchandise from Hyundai HYSCO may have entered U.S. customs 
territory during the POR. See Memorandum from Joseph Shuler, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, ``Customs 
Documentation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea,'' dated 
November 18, 2010.
    On November 18, 2010, we asked Hyundai HYSCO to explain the 
apparent discrepancy between its no shipment claim and the CBP 
information.
    Hyundai HYSCO responded on November 30, 2010, re-affirming that it 
did not export or sell subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR, and that it did not know or have reason to know that such 
merchandise would be exported to the United States during the POR.
    The Department has concluded that there is no evidence on the 
record that, at the time of sale, Hyundai HYSCO had knowledge that 
these entries were destined for the United States, nor is there 
evidence that Hyundai HYSCO had knowledge that any of these entries of 
subject merchandise entered the United States during the POR. See 
Memorandum to File, from Matthew Jordan, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, through Nancy Decker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations 
Office 1, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Circular Welded 
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea with respect to Hyundai 
HYSCO,'' dated December 7, 2010.
    With regard to Hyundai HYSCO's claim of no shipments, our practice 
since implementation of the 1997 regulations concerning no-shipment 
respondents has been to rescind the administrative review if the 
respondent certifies that it had no shipments and we have confirmed 
through our examination of CBP data that there were no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997), and Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 70 FR 
53161, 53162 (September 7, 2005), unchanged in Oil Country Tubular 
Goods from Japan: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006).
    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (``Assessment Policy Notice'').
    Based on Hyundai HYSCO's certification of no shipments and evidence 
on the record, we preliminarily determine that Hyundai HYSCO had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the Assessment Policy Notice clarification was 
intended to address, we find it appropriate in this case to instruct 
CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by 
Hyundai HYSCO and exported by other parties at the all-others rate 
should we continue to find at the time of our final results that 
Hyundai HYSCO had no shipments of subject merchandise from Korea. See, 
e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December 
19, 2008); Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 
2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 
(September 17, 2010). In addition, the Department finds that it is more 
consistent with the Assessment Policy Notice clarification not to 
rescind the review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to 
complete the review with respect to Hyundai HYSCO and issue appropriate 
instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review. See the 
Assessment Rates section of this notice below.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm 
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface 
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, 
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes 
are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for 
the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and 
other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-
conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related 
uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm 
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is 
also included in this review.
    All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description 
outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line 
pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe 
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished 
conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative 
Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe and Tube From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico and 
Venezuela, 61 FR 11608 (March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L 
line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe 
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe 
specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined 
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas 
pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') subheadings: 
7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 
7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Date of Sale

    The Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded 
in the

[[Page 77841]]

producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the 
invoice date if the Department is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are 
established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).

(A) SeAH

    For its home market sales, SeAH has reported the date the billing 
document is created in its accounting system as the date of sale. This 
is the date when the final price and quantity are set and is, in most 
cases, the same as the date of the shipping invoice.
    For its U.S. sales, SeAH reported the date of shipment from Korea 
as the date of sale because all U.S. sales are produced to order and 
the quantity ordered is subject to change between order and shipment. 
In addition, the shipment date from Korea always precedes the date of 
the invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, because SeAH's U.S. 
affiliate, Pusan Pipe America Inc. (``PPA''), does not invoice the 
unaffiliated U.S. customer until shortly after the subject merchandise 
enters into the United States. Because quantity is not finalized until 
shipment and because the shipment date always precedes the invoice date 
to the U.S. customer, we are relying on the date of shipment from Korea 
as the U.S. date of sale.

(B) Husteel

    For its home market sales, Husteel issues the shipment invoice at 
the time of shipment and considers the shipment date as the date of 
sale.
    For its U.S. sales through Husteel USA, Husteel reported the date 
of sale as the earlier of the commercial invoice date or the shipment 
date from Korea, in accordance with the Department's regulatory 
presumption that the invoice date is the date of sale. Therefore, we 
are relying on the earlier of the commercial invoice date or the 
shipment date as the date of sale.

(C) Nexteel

    Nexteel reported that negotiations regarding price and quantity can 
continue throughout the entire sales process. For both home market and 
U.S. sales, price is not fixed until Nexteel issues its tax and 
commercial invoice, which can occur after shipment date. See Nexteel A 
QR at A-20; see also Nexteel B&C QR at B-14 and A-9. Per the 
Department's practice that the date of sale may not be after shipment 
from factory, Nexteel reported the earlier of shipment date or invoice 
date as the date of sale. Therefore, we are relying on the earlier of 
the shipment date or the commercial invoice date as the date of sale.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether SeAH and Husteel's sales of CWP from Korea to 
the United States were made at less than NV, we compared constructed 
export price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice below. To 
determine whether Nexteel's sales of CWP from Korea to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice below.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP and 
CEP of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NVs of 
the foreign-like product, where there were sales made in the ordinary 
course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' 
section below.
    We are using a quarterly costing approach for SeAH and Husteel, as 
described in the ``Normal Value'' section below and, therefore, we have 
not made price-to-price comparisons for these companies outside of a 
quarter to lessen the distortive effect of comparing non-
contemporaneous sales prices during a period of significantly changing 
costs.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by SeAH, Husteel, and Nexteel that are covered by the 
description contained in the ``Scope of the Order'' section above and 
were sold in the home market during the POR to be the foreign like 
product for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales.
    We have relied on five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: (1) 
Grade; (2) nominal pipe size; (3) wall thickness; (4) surface finish; 
and (5) end-finish. For SeAH, we used actual pipe size in millimeters 
instead of nominal pipe size, because SeAH works with actual outside 
diameter in the ordinary course of business, and its unit of measure 
for nominal pipe size varies by transaction. For Husteel, we used 
outside diameter for certain transactions instead of nominal pipe size 
because for certain specifications, a nominal pipe size is not 
available. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign 
like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.
    Consistent with the most recently completed administrative review, 
for Nexteel and SeAH, we reclassified certain of the reported grades of 
certain pipes for product comparison purposes. See Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 34980 (June 21, 2010) 
(``CWP from Korea 2007-2008''), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5. See also Memorandum from Joshua Morris, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, ``Preliminary 
Results Calculation Memorandum,'' dated December 7, 2010 (``SeAH 
Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo''); and Memorandum from Matthew 
Jordan and Yasmin Nair, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to the 
File, ``Preliminary Results Calculation Memorandum for Nexteel Co., 
Ltd.,'' dated December 7, 2010 (``Nexteel Preliminary Sales Calculation 
Memo'').

Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The LOT 
in the comparison market is the LOT of the starting-price sales or, 
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), the LOT of the sales 
from which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') 
expenses and profit. For CEP, the LOT is that of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the affiliated importer. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(ii). See also Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 
F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    Where it is not possible to make comparisons at the same LOT, the 
statute permits the Department to account for the different levels. See 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Specifically, if the comparison market 
sales are made at multiple LOTs, and the difference in LOTs affects 
price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison 
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, the Department makes 
an upward or downward LOT adjustment in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube 
From Mexico, 73 FR 5515, 5522 (January 30, 2008) (``LWR

[[Page 77842]]

Pipe from Mexico''). Alternatively, for CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at 
a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the 
data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT 
adjustment, we reduce NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the foreign comparison market on sales of the foreign like 
product, but by no more than the amount of the indirect selling 
expenses incurred for CEP sales. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 
(the CEP offset provision) and LWR Pipe from Mexico, 73 FR at 5522.
    To determine whether sales are made at different LOTs, we examine 
stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain 
of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. 
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less 
Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
Thailand, 73 FR 24565 (May 5, 2008); and LWR Pipe from Mexico, 
unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 73 FR 35649 
(June 24, 2008). In particular, we analyze whether different selling 
activities are performed, and whether any price differences (other than 
those for which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to 
be wholly or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. 
In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether the 
LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR at 27371. If the claimed LOTs are 
the same, we expect that the functions and activities of the seller 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities 
of the seller should be dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware 
From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6.

(A) SeAH

    SeAH reported two channels of distribution in the comparison 
market, Korea: (1) Direct sales to unaffiliated end-users and 
distributors; and (2) sales to affiliated companies. In the U.S. 
market, SeAH reported one LOT and one channel of distribution for the 
CEP sales made through its affiliated company in the United States, 
PPA. SeAH stated that its U.S. sales were made at a different, less 
advanced LOT than its comparison market sales. SeAH is not seeking a 
LOT adjustment, however, because it had no comparison market sales that 
were at the same LOT as the U.S. CEP sales. Instead, it claims that a 
CEP offset is warranted. See SeAH A QR 21-22.
    In evaluating SeAH's claim, we examined its activities in each 
channel of distribution relating to four different types of selling 
functions: Sales process and marketing support; freight and delivery; 
inventory maintenance and warehousing; and warranty and technical 
services. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that SeAH's 
selling activities in the comparison market did not vary significantly 
by channel of distribution. See SeAH's Section A Questionnaire Response 
at Exhibit A-16. Therefore, we preliminary determine that SeAH sold at 
one LOT in the comparison market. We further determine preliminarily 
that SeAH sold at one LOT in the U.S. market.
    We then compared the selling functions performed by SeAH for its 
U.S. sales to the selling functions performed for the single LOT in the 
comparison market. Record evidence indicates that SeAH undertakes 
significant activities in the comparison market related to the sales 
process and marketing support, as well as warehousing and warranty 
services that it does not undertake for its U.S. CEP sales. See SeAH 
Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo and SeAH A QR at Exhibit A-16. These 
differences in selling functions indicate that SeAH's comparison market 
sales are made at a more advanced stage of distribution than its CEP 
sales. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that SeAH's comparison 
market and CEP sales are at different LOTs.

(B) Husteel

    Husteel reported one channel of distribution in its home market: 
Sales to unaffiliated customers that include distributors and end-
users. In the U.S. market, Husteel reported one channel of 
distribution: Sales to unaffiliated customers made through its 
affiliated company in the United States, Husteel USA. Husteel stated 
that its U.S. sales were made at a different, less advanced LOT than 
its comparison market sales. Husteel is not seeking a LOT adjustment, 
however, because it had no comparison market sales that were at the 
same LOT as the U.S. CEP sales. Instead, it claims that a CEP offset is 
warranted. See Husteel A QR at A-15.
    In evaluating Husteel's claim, we examined its activities in each 
channel of distribution relating to four different types of selling 
functions: Sales process and marketing support; freight and delivery; 
inventory maintenance and warehousing; and warranty and technical 
services. Based on our analysis, we preliminarily determine that 
Husteel's selling activities in the comparison market did not vary 
significantly by channel of distribution. See Husteel November 
Supplemental Response at Exhibit A-22. Therefore, we preliminary 
determine that Husteel sold at one LOT in the comparison market. We 
further determine preliminarily that Husteel sold at one LOT in the 
U.S. market.
    We then compared the selling functions performed by Husteel for its 
U.S. sales to the selling functions performed for the single LOT in the 
comparison market. Record evidence indicates that Husteel undertakes 
significant activities in the comparison market related to the sales 
process and market research, procurement and sourcing services, as well 
as personnel training that it does not undertake for its U.S. CEP 
sales. See Memorandum from Alexander Montoro, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, to the File, Re: Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memorandum, dated December 7, 2010 (``Husteel Preliminary Sales 
Calculation Memo'') and Husteel November Supplemental Response at 
Exhibit A-22. These differences in selling functions performed for 
comparison market and CEP transactions indicate that Husteel's 
comparison market sales are made at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than its CEP sales. Consequently, we preliminarily 
determine that Husteel's comparison market and CEP sales are at 
different LOTs.

(C) Nexteel

    Nexteel reported one channel of distribution in the home market: 
Direct sales to unaffiliated end-users and distributors. In the U.S. 
market, Nexteel reported one LOT and two channels of distribution. See 
Nexteel Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo. Nexteel stated that its 
U.S. sales were made at the same LOT as its comparison market sales and 
is, therefore, not seeking a LOT adjustment. See Nexteel A QR at 11; 
see also Nexteel B&C QR at B-22 and A-16.
    As discussed above, the Department will make a LOT adjustment in 
these circumstances when the information exists to do so. We have found 
different LOTs between the comparison market and the CEP sales for SeAH 
and Husteel. However, since there is only one LOT in the comparison 
market for both SeAH and Husteel, there is no basis upon which to 
determine whether there is a pattern of consistent price differences

[[Page 77843]]

between LOTs in the comparison market upon which to base a LOT 
adjustment to the CEP sales. Further, we do not have the information 
that would allow us to examine the price patterns of SeAH's and 
Husteel's sales of other similar products, and there is no other record 
evidence upon which a LOT adjustment could be based. Therefore, we have 
not made a LOT adjustment for either SeAH or Husteel.
    Instead, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we 
preliminarily determine that a CEP offset is appropriate for SeAH and 
Husteel to reflect that their comparison market sales are at a more 
advanced stage than the LOT of their respective CEP sales. We based the 
amount of the CEP offset on comparison market indirect selling expenses 
and limited the deduction to the amount of the indirect selling 
expenses deducted from CEP under section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We 
applied the CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons. For a detailed 
discussion, see SeAH Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo; see also 
Husteel Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter.

(A) SeAH

    For purposes of this review, SeAH classified all of its export 
sales of CWP to the United States as CEP sales. During the POR, SeAH 
made sales in the United States through its U.S. affiliate, PPA, which 
then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States. The Department calculated CEP based on the packed, delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, net of early 
payment discounts and other discounts. We adjusted these prices for 
movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, international 
freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, and 
U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from 
the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling 
the subject merchandise in the United States, including imputed credit 
expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling expenses. We also 
made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act. We used the expenses reported by SeAH in connection with its 
U.S. sales, with the exception of an adjustment to the indirect selling 
expense calculation. See SeAH Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

(B) Husteel

    For purposes of this review, Husteel classified all of its export 
sales of CWP to the United States as CEP sales. During the POR, Husteel 
made sales in the United States through its U.S. affiliate, Husteel 
USA, which then resold the merchandise to unaffiliated customers in the 
United States. The Department calculated CEP based on the packed, 
delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We 
adjusted these prices for movement expenses, including foreign inland 
freight, international freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. 
brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from 
the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling 
the subject merchandise in the United States, including imputed credit 
expenses and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for 
profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We used the 
expenses reported by Husteel in connection with its U.S. sales. See 
Husteel Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.

Export Price

(C) Nexteel

    Nexteel reported that it made U.S. sales only on an EP basis. For 
sales to the United States, the Department calculated EP in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as 
the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the 
date of importation by the exporter or manufacturer outside the United 
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. We 
calculated EP because the merchandise was sold by Nexteel to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States prior to 
importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted. Nexteel 
reported sales to the United States based upon three different types of 
sales terms: Free-on board; cost and freight; and cost, insurance and 
freight. The Department calculated EP based on these reported prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, the 
Department made deductions, consistent with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act, for the following movement expenses: Foreign inland freight; 
foreign brokerage and handling; international freight; and marine 
insurance.

Normal Value

(A) Cost Averaging Methodology

    The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual 
weighted-average cost for the POR. See Certain Pasta From Italy: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 77852 
(December 13, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 18, and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 (explaining the Department's practice 
of computing a single weighted-average cost for the entire period). 
However, we recognize that possible distortions may result if we use 
our normal annual-average cost method during a period of significant 
cost changes. In determining whether to deviate from our normal 
methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost, we evaluate 
the case-specific record evidence using two primary factors: (1) The 
change in the cost of manufacturing (``COM'') recognized by the 
respondent during the POR must be deemed significant; (2) the record 
evidence must indicate that sales during the shorter averaging periods 
could be reasonably linked with the cost of production (``COP'') or CV 
during the same shorter averaging periods. See Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 (February 10, 2010) (``SSSS from 
Mexico''), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 
and Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 (December 11, 2008) 
(``SSPC from Belgium''), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4.
1. Significance of Cost Changes
    In prior cases, we established 25 percent as the threshold (between 
the high- and low-quarter COM) for determining that the changes in COM 
are significant enough to warrant a

[[Page 77844]]

departure from our standard annual-cost approach. See SSPC from Belgium 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. In the 
instant case, record evidence shows that Husteel and SeAH experienced 
significant changes (i.e., changes that exceeded 25 percent) between 
the high and low quarterly COM during the POR for the selected highest 
sales volume CWP products. This change in COM is attributable primarily 
to the price volatility for hot-rolled carbon steel coil used in the 
manufacture of CWP. We found that prices for hot-rolled carbon steel 
coil changed significantly throughout the POR and, as a result, 
directly affected the cost of the material inputs consumed by Husteel 
and SeAH. See Memorandum from James Balog to Neal M. Halper, Director 
of Office of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Husteel Co., Ltd. 
(``Husteel Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo'') dated December 7, 2010, 
and Memorandum from Kristin Case to Neal M. Halper, Director of Office 
of Accounting, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--SeAH Steel Corporation,'' 
(``SeAH Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo'') dated December 7, 2010.
2. Linkage Between Cost and Sales Information
    Consistent with past precedent, because we found the changes in 
costs to be significant, we evaluated whether there is evidence of a 
linkage between the cost changes and the sales prices during the POR. 
See, e.g., SSSS from Mexico and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6 and SSPC from Belgium and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Absent a surcharge or other 
pricing mechanism, the Department may alternatively look for evidence 
of a clear pattern that changes in selling prices reasonably correlate 
to changes in unit costs. See SSPC from Belgium and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. These correlative elements may be 
measured and defined in a number of ways depending on the associated 
industry and the overall production and sales processes. To determine 
whether a reasonable correlation existed between the sales prices and 
their underlying costs during the POR, for SeAH and Husteel, we 
compared weighted-average quarterly prices to the corresponding 
quarterly COM for the five control numbers with the highest volume of 
sales in the comparison market and the United States. Our comparison 
reveals that sales and costs for a majority of the sample CONNUMs 
showed reasonable correlation. After reviewing this information and 
determining that changes in selling prices reasonably correlate to 
changes in unit costs, we preliminarily determine that there is linkage 
between Husteel's and SeAH's costs and sales prices during the POR. See 
Husteel Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo. See also SeAH Preliminary 
Cost Calculation Memo. See, e.g., SSSS from Mexico and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 and SSPC from Belgium and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
    Because we have found significant cost changes in COM as well as 
reasonable linkage between costs and sales prices, we have 
preliminarily determined that a quarterly costing approach leads to 
more appropriate comparisons in our antidumping duty calculations for 
Husteel and SeAH.

(B) Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
comparison market, Korea, to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
NV, we compared Husteel's, Nexteel's, and SeAH's home market sales 
volumes of the foreign like product to their U.S. sales volumes of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 
For each company, the aggregate home market sales volumes of the 
foreign like product were greater than five percent of their aggregate 
U.S. sales volumes of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determine 
that the home market was viable for comparison purposes for Husteel, 
Nexteel, and SeAH.

(C) Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Husteel reported that it did not sell any subject merchandise to 
affiliated parties during the POR.
    SeAH and Nexteel reported sales of the foreign like product to 
affiliated and unaffiliated customers in the comparison market. The 
Department calculates NV based on a sale to an affiliated party only if 
it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is comparable to 
the price at which sales are made to parties not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, i.e., sales at ``arm's length.'' See 19 CFR 
351.403(c). To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-
length prices, we compared on a model-specific basis, the starting 
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. In accordance 
with the Department's current practice, if the prices charged to an 
affiliated party were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the 
prices charged to unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or 
most similar to that sold to the affiliated party, we considered the 
sales to be at arm's-length prices and included such sales in the 
calculation of NV. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, where sales to 
the affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to 
that affiliated party were excluded from the NV calculation. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 15, 2002).

(D) Cost of Production Analysis

SeAH

    The Department disregarded sales made below the COP in the last 
completed review in which SeAH participated. See CWP from Korea 2007-
2008. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that SeAH made sales 
of the subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the 
COP in the current review period. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the 
Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by SeAH.

Husteel

    The Department disregarded sales made below the COP in the last 
completed review in which Husteel participated. See Circular Welded 
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 32492 (June 10, 2004). 
Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Husteel made sales of the 
subject merchandise in its comparison market at prices below the COP in 
the current review period. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
initiated a COP investigation of sales by Husteel.

Nexteel

    No COP investigation was conducted for Nexteel.

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 
SeAH and Husteel, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, to determine 
whether SeAH's and Husteel's comparison market sales were made at 
prices below the COP, by quarter. We compared sales

[[Page 77845]]

of the foreign like product in the home market with model-specific COP 
figures. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, plus SG&A expenses, financial 
expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to placing the foreign 
like product in packed condition and ready for shipment.

SeAH

    We relied on home market sales and COP information provided by SeAH 
in its questionnaire responses, except where noted below:
    During the POR, SeAH purchased carbon steel hot-rolled coil inputs 
from a home market affiliated company, Pohang Iron and Steel Company 
(``POSCO''). Carbon steel hot-rolled coil is considered a major input 
to the production of CWP. Section 773(f)(3) of the Act (the major input 
rule) states:

    If, in the case of a transaction between affiliated persons 
involving the production by one of such persons of a major input to 
the merchandise, the administering authority has reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that an amount represented as the value of 
such input is less than the cost of production of such input, then 
the administering authority may determine the value of the major 
input on the basis of the information available regarding such cost 
of production, if such cost is greater than the amount that would be 
determined for such input under paragraph (2).

    Paragraph 2 of section 773(f) of the Act (transactions disregarded) 
states:

    A transaction directly or indirectly between affiliated persons 
may be disregarded if, in the case of any element of value required 
to be considered, the amount representing that element does not 
fairly reflect the amount usually reflected in sales of merchandise 
under consideration in the market under consideration. If a 
transaction is disregarded under the preceding sentence and no other 
transactions are available for consideration, the determination of 
the amount shall be based on the information available as to what 
the amount would have been if the transaction had occurred between 
persons who are not affiliated.

    In accordance with the major input rule, and as stated in the 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR at 45714 
(August 8, 2008), unchanged in Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 
from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009), it is the Department's normal practice 
to use all three elements of the major input rule (i.e., transfer 
price, COP, and market price) where available. In accordance with 
section 773(f)(3) of the Act (the major input rule), we evaluated 
transactions between SeAH and its affiliate using the transfer price, 
COP, and market price of carbon steel hot-rolled coil. For the 
preliminary results, we adjusted SeAH's reported costs to reflect the 
highest of these three values for SeAH's purchases of hot-rolled coil 
from POSCO. Because we have determined that shorter cost periods are 
appropriate for the COP analysis, we have applied the major input rule 
analysis and calculated the related adjustments on a quarterly basis.
    We adjusted the cost of goods sold denominator used in the general 
and administrative expense ratio to reflect our major input adjustment. 
We also adjusted the cost of goods sold denominator used in the 
financial expense ratio to reflect our major input adjustment. See SeAH 
Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo.
    We did not include local home market sales that were paid on a 
local letter of credit basis, as SeAH knew these sales were destined 
for export. See SeAH Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo.

Husteel

    In our sales-below-cost analysis, we relied on home market sales 
and COP information provided by Husteel in its questionnaire responses, 
except that we adjusted the general and administrative expense ratio to 
exclude the offset for commission income. See Husteel Preliminary Cost 
Calculation Memo.

1. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    In determining whether to disregard SeAH's and Husteel's home 
market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an 
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the 
normal course of trade. As noted in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 
prices are considered to provide for recovery of costs if such prices 
are above the weighted average per-unit COP for the period of 
investigation or review. We determined the net comparison market prices 
for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling 
expenses, and packing expenses. See SeAH Preliminary Sales Calculation 
Memo; see also Husteel Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.
    As discussed above, we have relied on a quarterly costing approach 
in this review. Similar to that used by the Department in cases of 
high-inflation (see, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
Products from Indonesia, 64 FR 73164 (December 29, 1999), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1), this 
methodology restates the quarterly costs on a year-end equivalent 
basis, calculates an annual weighted-average cost for the POR and then 
restates it to each respective quarter. We find that this alternative 
cost calculation method meets the requirements of section 773(b)(2)(D) 
of the Act.

2. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product were at prices less than the COP we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period 
of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of 
prices to the indexed weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at 
prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    Our cost tests for Husteel and SeAH revealed that, for home market 
sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those 
models were made at prices below the COP. Therefore, we retained all 
such sales in our analysis and included them in determining NV. Our 
cost test for SeAH and Husteel also indicated that for home market 
sales of other models, more than 20 percent were sold at prices below 
the COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which 
would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the 
remaining above-cost sales to determine NV. See SeAH Preliminary Sales 
Calculation Memo; see also Husteel Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo.
(E) Constructed Value
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV for 
SeAH and

[[Page 77846]]

Husteel based on the sum of their respective material and fabrication 
costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the 
COP component of CV as described above in the ``Cost of Production 
Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by each respondent in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
(F) Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
    We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in Korea. For Nexteel and Husteel, we adjusted these prices for early 
payment discounts. We adjusted the starting price for all respondents, 
less any discounts, by deducting foreign inland freight and warehousing 
(Nexteel only), pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We 
made adjustments for differences in packing, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and in 
circumstances of sale (for imputed credit expenses), under section 
773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 315.410.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for 
the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 
351.411(b).
(G) Price-to-CV Comparison
    Where we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based 
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance 
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 and section 773A of the Act, we made 
currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. See Import 
Administration website at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/. 

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin 
exists for the respondents for the period November 1, 2008, through 
October 31, 2009. Respondents other than mandatory respondents will 
receive the weighted-average of the margins calculated for those 
companies selected for individual review (i.e., mandatory respondents), 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts 
available.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                   average margin
                                                              percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel Corporation..................................            6.24
Husteel Co., Ltd........................................            2.15
Nexteel Co., Ltd........................................           12.30
Hyundai HYSCO...........................................               *
Kumkang Industrial Co., Ltd.............................            8.88
A-JU Besteel Co., Ltd...................................            8.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has an
  individual rate from the last segment of the proceeding in which the
  firm had shipments or sales.

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of the publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a hearing is requested, 
the Department will notify interested parties of the hearing schedule. 
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
case briefs.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results of this review. The Department will consider case briefs filed 
by interested parties within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested 
parties may file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department will consider rebuttal 
briefs filed not later than five days after the time limit for filing 
case briefs. Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 
(2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties submitting case 
and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department with an 
additional electronic copy of the public version of any such comments 
on a computer diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on 
interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). The Department will issue appropriate appraisement 
instructions for the companies subject to this review directly to CBP 
15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this 
review.
    For SeAH and Husteel, we will calculate importer-specific ad 
valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the sales, as reported by SeAH and Husteel. See 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1).
    Nexteel reported the importer of record for certain of its U.S. 
sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all sales where Nexteel 
reported the importer of record, Nexteel submitted the reported entered 
value of the U.S. sales and the Department has calculated importer-
specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those sales. For certain U.S. sales Nexteel did not 
report the importer or the entered value. For purposes of calculating 
importer-specific assessment rates, we considered Nexteel's U.S. 
customer to be the importer of record when the importer was unknown, 
and we calculated entered value as U.S. price net of international 
movement expenses.
    The Department has calculated importer-specific per-unit duty 
assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the 
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine 
whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with 
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), the Department 
calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated 
entered value.
    For the companies that were not selected for individual review, we 
calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash 
deposit rates calculated for companies selected for individual review, 
where those rates were not de minimis or based on adverse facts 
available, in accordance with Department practice.

[[Page 77847]]

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003, in its Assessment Policy Notice. This clarification will 
apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by 
SeAH, Husteel, Nexteel, and Hyundai HYSCO for which these companies did 
not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved 
in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion 
of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
CWP from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of 
the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed above will 
be the rates established in the final results of this review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash 
deposit will be zero; (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 final results 
in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 4.80 percent, the ``all others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation. See CWP Order. These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only 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 written 
notification of return/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.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 7, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-31368 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P