Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 17819-17825 [2011-7621]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
• Re-chartering the Minnesota SAC
• Re-chartering the Alabama SAC
VI. Approval of March 11, 2011 Meeting
Minutes
VII. Announcements
VIII. Adjourn
CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky,
Acting
Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376–
8591. Hearing-impaired persons who
will attend the meeting and require the
services of a sign language interpreter
should contact Pamela Dunston at (202)
376–8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov
at least three business days before the
scheduled date of the meeting.
Dated: March 29, 2011.
Kimberly A. Tolhurst,
Senior Attorney-Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2011–7765 Filed 3–29–11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Direct Investment
Surveys: BE–15, Annual Survey of
Foreign Direct Investment in the United
States
ACTION:
Notice.
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
comment on proposed and/or
continuing information collections, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, or via e-mail at
dhynek@doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Request for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to David H. Galler, Chief, Direct
Investment Division (BE–50), Bureau of
Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;
phone: (202) 606–9835; fax: (202) 606–
5318; or via e-mail at
david.galler@bea.gov.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
I. Abstract
The Annual Survey of Foreign Direct
Investment in the United States (Form
BE–15) obtains sample data on the
financial structure and operations of
U.S. affiliates of foreign investors. The
data are needed to provide reliable,
useful, and timely measures of foreign
direct investment in the United States,
assess its impact on the U.S. economy,
and based upon this assessment, make
informed policy decisions regarding
foreign direct investment in the United
States. The data are used to derive
annual estimates of the operations of
U.S. affiliates of foreign investors,
including their balance sheets; income
statements; property, plant, and
equipment; employment and employee
compensation; merchandise trade; sales
of goods and services; taxes; and
research and development activity. In
addition, data covering employment are
collected by state. The data are also
used to update similar data for the
universe of U.S. affiliates collected once
every five years on the BE–12
benchmark survey.
The survey forms remain the same as
in the past. No changes in the data
collected or in exemption levels are
proposed.
II. Method of Collection
The BE–15 annual survey is sent to
potential respondents in March of each
year. A completed report covering a
reporting company’s fiscal year ending
during the previous calendar year is due
by May 31. Reports must be filed by
every U.S. business enterprise that is
owned 10 percent or more by a foreign
investor and that has total assets, sales
or gross operating revenues, or net
income (or loss) of over $40 million.
As an alternative to filing paper
forms, BEA will offer an electronic filing
option, its eFile system, for use in
reporting on Form BE–15. For more
information about eFile, go to https://
www.bea.gov/efile.
Potential respondents are those U.S.
business enterprises that reported in the
2007 benchmark survey of foreign direct
investment in the United States, along
with businesses that subsequently
entered the direct investment universe.
The BE–15 is a sample survey, as
described; universe estimates are
developed from the reported sample
data.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0608–0034.
Form Number: BE–15.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17819
Estimated Number of Respondents:
3,650 annually.
Estimated Time per Response: 18.8
hours is the average, but may vary
considerably among respondents
because of differences in company size
and complexity.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 68,750.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: International
Investment and Trade in Services
Survey Act (Pub. L. 94–472, 22 U.S.C.
3101–3108, as amended by Pub. L. 98–
573 and Pub. L. 101–533).
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of
the Agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: March 25, 2011.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–7530 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–930]
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the
first administrative review of the
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
17820
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
antidumping duty order on circular
welded austenitic stainless pressure
pipe (‘‘austenitic pipe’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) is September
5, 2008, through February 28, 2010. The
Department has preliminarily
determined that sales have not been
made below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by the
respondent during the POR. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We intend to issue
the final results of this review no later
than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brandon Farlander or Patrick O’Connor,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482–0182 or (202) 482–
0989 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On March 17, 2009, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on austenitic
pipe from the PRC.1 On March 1, 2010,
the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the austenitic pipe order.2
The Department received a timely
request for an administrative review of
the austenitic pipe order from Zhejiang
Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiuli
TC’’) on March 31, 2010, in accordance
with section 751(a) of Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). On April 27,
2010, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of initiation of
an administrative review of the
austenitic pipe order.3
The Department issued its initial and
supplemental questionnaires to Jiuli TC
from May to December 2010. The
Department received questionnaire
responses from June to December 2010.
On July 30, 2010, Petitioners 4 submitted
comments to the Department regarding
certain submissions and responses of
Jiuli TC.
On September 15, 2010, the
Department released a letter to
1 See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China, 74 FR 11351 (March 17, 2009).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 9162
(March 1, 2010).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 22107 (April
27, 2010).
4 Petitioners are Bristol Metals, LLC; Felker
Brothers Corporation; Marcegaglia U.S.A., Inc.; and
Outokumpu Stainless Products.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
interested parties which listed potential
surrogate countries and invited
interested parties to comment on
surrogate country and surrogate value
(‘‘SV’’) selection. Between August and
October 2010, Petitioners and Jiuli TC
submitted publicly available SV
information, as well as comments and
rebuttal comments on the selection of a
surrogate country and SVs. For a
discussion of the selection of the
surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate
Country’’ section below.
On November 19, 2010, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the
Department extended the time period
for completing the preliminary results of
review by 120 days.5
From January 10 to January 14, 2011,
the Department conducted a verification
of Jiuli TC in the PRC. On January 26
and 27, 2011, the Department verified
Jiuli TC’s U.S. affiliate in Houston,
Texas.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is circular welded austenitic stainless
pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches
in outside diameter. This merchandise
includes, but is not limited to, the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) A–312 or ASTM A–
778 specifications, or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications.
ASTM A–358 products are only
included when they are produced to
meet ASTM A–312 or ASTM A–778
specifications, or comparable domestic
or foreign specifications. Excluded from
the scope are: (1) Welded stainless
mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A–
554 or comparable domestic or foreign
specifications; (2) boiler, heat
exchanger, superheater, refining
furnace, feedwater heater, and
condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A–
249, ASTM A–688 or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications; and
(3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM
A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally
classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005;
7306.40.5040; 7306.40.5062;
7306.40.5064; and 7306.40.5085 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). They may also
enter under HTSUS subheadings
7306.40.1010; 7306.40.1015;
7306.40.5042; 7306.40.5044;
7306.40.5080; and 7306.40.5090. The
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes
5 See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe From the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 70908 (November 19, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
only, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we verified the information
provided by Jiuli TC using standard
verification procedures including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s
facilities and the examination of
relevant sales and financial records. Our
verification results are outlined in the
PRC and U.S. verification reports,6 the
public versions of which are available in
the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of
the main Department building.
Affiliation and Collapsing
Based on the evidence presented in
Jiuli TC’s questionnaire responses and
at verification, which is that Jiuli TC
owns 75 percent of Huzhou Jiuli
Welded Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Jiuli SD Co.’’), we preliminarily find
affiliation between Jiuli TC and Jiuli SD
Co. pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the
Act.
In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f), the Department will treat
affiliated producers as a single entity, or
‘‘collapse’’ them, where: (1) The
producers have production facilities for
producing similar or identical products
that would not require substantial
retooling of either facility in order to
restructure manufacturing priorities;
and (2) there is a significant potential
for manipulation of price or production.
In determining whether a significant
potential for manipulation exists, 19
CFR 351.401(f)(2) states that the
Department may consider various
factors, including: (i) The level of
common ownership; (ii) the extent to
which managerial employees or board
members of one firm sit on the board of
directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii)
whether the operations of the affiliated
firms are intertwined through the
sharing of sales information,
involvement in production and pricing
decisions, the sharing of facilities or
employees, or significant transactions
between the affiliated producers.
The Department preliminarily
concludes that the totality of the record
evidence supports collapsing Jiuli TC
and Jiuli SD Co. into a single entity,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and
(2). Accordingly, the Department
preliminarily based its margin
6 See memoranda to the file through Howard
Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Questionnaire
Responses of Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co.,
Ltd.’’ (‘‘PRC verification report’’) and ‘‘Verification of
the Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Jiuli HiTech Metals Co., Ltd.’s (‘‘Jiuli TC’’) U.S. affiliate Jiuli
USA, Inc.’’, dated February 25, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
calculation on information submitted
pertaining to Jiuli TC and Jiuli SD Co.
For further discussion on the
Department’s decision to collapse Jiuli
TC with Jiuli SD Co., see the
memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Office Director, ‘‘Whether to Collapse
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd.
and Huzhou Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel
Pipe Co., Ltd.’’, dated concurrently with
this notice.7
Non-Market Economy Treatment
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. No party has
challenged the designation of the PRC as
an NME country in this review.
Accordingly, the Department calculated
NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Surrogate Country
When the Department reviews
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’) valued in a surrogate marketeconomy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market-economy
countries that are: (A) At a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country, and (B)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. Further, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will
normally value all FOPs in a single
country, except for labor.
During this review, the Department
identified India, the Philippines,
Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru
as a non-exhaustive list of countries that
are at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC and for which
good quality data is most likely
available.8 Once the countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC
7 We are treating Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals
Co., Ltd. and Huzhou Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel
Pipe Co., Ltd. as the combined entity, ‘‘Jiuli TC.’’
8 See Memorandum from Carole Showers,
Director, Office of Policy, to Howard Smith,
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe’’ (August 30, 2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
have been identified, the Department
selects an appropriate surrogate country
by determining whether an
economically comparable country is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise and whether the data for
valuing FOPs are both available and
reliable.
The Department has preliminarily
determined that it is appropriate to use
India as a surrogate country pursuant to
section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the
following: (A) It is at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC; (B)
it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise.9 Also, there is
reliable data from India that can be used
to value the FOPs. Thus, the Department
calculated NV using publicly available
Indian prices when available and
appropriate to value the FOPs of Jiuli
TC.10
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly-available information to
value FOPs until 20 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary results
of this review.11
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
9 See the financial statements of Ratnamani
Metals & Tubes, Ltd. (‘‘Ratnamani’’) and Jindal
SAW, Ltd. (‘‘Jindal’’) for the fiscal year January 1,
2009, through March 31, 2010, in Petitioners’
October 12, 2010 SV submission at Exhibits 10 and
11. Ratnamani’s and Jindal’s financial statements at
2, 39, 41, 42, and 44 and at 19, 26–29, 71, and 72,
respectively, demonstrate that these companies
produce merchandise both identical and
comparable to subject merchandise. Hence, based
on Ratnamani’s and Jindal’s production experience
during the POR, we determine that India is a
significant producer of identical and comparable
merchandise.
10 See Memorandum to the File from Brandon
Farlander and Patrick O’Connor, International
Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, ‘‘Administrative Review of Circular
Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,’’ (March 25, 2011) (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’).
11 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual information to
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for
submission of such factual information. However,
the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the
record. The Department generally will not accept
the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See
Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17821
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under the test announced
in the Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR
20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in a market economy, then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to
determine whether it is independent
from government control.12
Jiuli TC provided evidence that it is
a publicly traded company on the
Shenzhen Stock Exchange with Jiuli
Group Joint Stock Ltd., a Chinese entity,
as its primary shareholder.13
Thus, the Department has analyzed
whether Jiuli TC has demonstrated the
absence of de jure and de facto
governmental control over its export
activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export license; (2) legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.14
The evidence provided by Jiuli TC
supports a preliminary finding of de
jure absence of governmental control
based on the following: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) the existence of
applicable legislative enactments
12 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105
(December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was
wholly foreign-owned and thus qualified for a
separate rate).
13 See Jiuli TC’s Section A response, dated June
7, 2010, at 3–5 and PRC verification report at 5.
14 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
17822
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
decentralizing control of Chinese
companies; and (3) the implementation
of formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of Chinese
companies.15
b. Absence of De Facto Control
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
The Department considers four factors
in evaluating whether each respondent
is subject to de facto governmental
control of its export functions: (1)
Whether the export prices are set by or
are subject to the approval of a
governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.16 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of governmental control
which would preclude the Department
from assigning separate rates.
The evidence provided by Jiuli TC
supports a preliminary finding of de
facto absence of governmental control
based on statements and supporting
documentation showing that the
company: (1) Set its own export prices
independent of the government and
without the approval of a government
authority; (2) has the authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) maintains autonomy
from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of
management; and (4) retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.17
Therefore, the evidence placed on the
record of this review by Jiuli TC
demonstrates an absence of de jure and
de facto government control under the
criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the
Department has preliminarily granted
Jiuli TC separate rate status.18
15 See Jiuli TC’s Section A response, dated June
7, 2010, at 3–5 and PRC verification report at 5–7.
16 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
17 See Jiuli TC’s Section A response, dated June
7, 2010, at 5–7 and PRC verification report at 7–9.
18 See ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section
below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
Fair Value Comparison
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)
of the Act, to determine whether sales
of austenitic pipe to the United States
by Jiuli TC were made at less than NV,
the Department compared the weightedaverage export price (‘‘EP’’) and
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV,
as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
activity in the United States. Also, the
Department deducted CEP profit, in
accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and
772(f) of the Act. Additionally, for the
expenses that were either provided by
an NME vendor or paid for using an
NME currency, the Department based
the expenses on SVs, as appropriate. For
details regarding the CEP calculation,
see Jiuli TC Analysis Memorandum.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department used EP as the
basis for U.S. price for Jiuli TC’s sales
where the first sale to unaffiliated
purchasers was made prior to
importation. In accordance with section
772(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated EP for Jiuli TC by deducting
inland freight from the plant to the port,
domestic brokerage and handling,
international freight and marine
insurance expenses from the starting
price charged to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States.19 In
accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act, the Department used CEP as the
basis for U.S. price for Jiuli TC’s sales
where Jiuli TC first sold subject
merchandise to its affiliated company in
the United States (Jiuli USA, Inc.),
which in turn sold subject merchandise
to unaffiliated U.S. customers. 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, as
adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d)
of the Act. The Department calculated
CEP for Jiuli TC based on prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States and made deductions, where
applicable, from the U.S. sales price for
movement expenses (inland freight from
the plant to the port and domestic
brokerage and handling), in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.20 In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act, the Department deducted early
payment discounts, credit expenses and
indirect selling expenses from the U.S.
price, all of which relate to commercial
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
country and the information does not
permit the calculation of NV using
home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. The
Department bases NV on FOPs because
the presence of government controls on
various aspects of NMEs renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the
Department’s normal methodologies.21
Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act,
FOPs include, but are not limited to: (1)
Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of
raw materials employed; (3) amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs,
including depreciation. The Department
based NV on FOPs and consumption
quantities reported by Jiuli TC for
materials, energy, labor and packing.
19 See
memorandum from Brandon Farlander and
Patrick O’Connor, International Trade Compliance
Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to the File,
‘‘Administrative Review of Circular Welded
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum for Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co.,
Ltd.’’ (March 25, 2011) (‘‘Jiuli TC Analysis
Memorandum’’).
20 See Jiuli TC Analysis Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, the Department calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by Jiuli TC.
To obtain the input costs used to
calculate NV, the Department
multiplied the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
Indian SVs. As appropriate, the
Department adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, the
Department added to Indian import SVs
a surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the respondent’s
factory or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the respondent’s factory
where appropriate. This adjustment is
in accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
21 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from
the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703
(April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8,
2006).
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A
detailed description of all SVs used for
Jiuli TC can be found in the Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
In selecting SVs, the Department
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.22 Further,
in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act and Departmental practice, the
Department selected, to the extent
practicable, SVs which are non-export
average values, contemporaneous with
the POR, product-specific, and taxexclusive.23 In the instant review, the
Department used Indian import
statistics from the Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’), as published by Global Trade
Information Services, and other publicly
available Indian sources in order to
calculate SVs for Jiuli TC’s FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, packing
materials) and certain movement
expenses. The record shows that data in
the GTA Indian import statistics, as well
as those from the other Indian sources,
are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.24 In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the
Indian Wholesale Price Index as
published in the International Monetary
Fund’s International Financial
Statistics.25
Jiuli TC reported that one of its raw
material inputs, steel, was sourced in
part from market-economy countries
and paid for in market-economy
currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR
22 See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December
4, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; Final Results of First
New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic of China,
66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
23 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
24 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 1.
25 See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009),
unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
351.408(c)(1), when a respondent
sources inputs from a market-economy
supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e.,
not insignificant quantities), the
Department normally will only use the
actual price paid by the respondent to
value those inputs except when prices
may have been distorted by findings of
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.26
Where the facts developed in either U.S.
or third-country countervailing duty
findings include the existence of
subsidies that appear to be used
generally (in particular, broadly
available, non-industry specific export
subsidies), the Department will have
reason to believe or suspect that prices
of the inputs from the country granting
the subsidies may be subsidized.27
Information reported by Jiuli TC
demonstrates that it did not purchase
significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or
more) of steel from market-economy
suppliers. Thus, to value steel, the
Department weight-averaged the marketeconomy purchase price and the
appropriate surrogate value for steel
using the market economy and NME
percentages of the reported total volume
of purchases.28 Where appropriate, we
added freight to the market-economy
purchase price of steel.
In accordance with legislative history,
the Department continues to apply its
long-standing practice of disregarding
SVs if it has a reason to believe or
suspect the source data may be
subsidized.29 In this regard, the
Department has previously found that it
is appropriate to disregard such prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand because we have determined
that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export
26 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997); see also
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of 1998–1999
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (‘‘TRBs 1998–
1999’’), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
27 See TRBs 1998–1999 at Comment 1; see also
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of 1999–2000
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; China National Machinery Imp. & Exp.
Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338–
39 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003).
28 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies’’).
29 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17823
subsidies.30 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies. Therefore, the
Department has not used prices from
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in
calculating the Indian import-based
SVs.
Additionally, the Department
disregarded prices from NME countries.
Finally, imports that were labeled as
originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’
country were excluded from the average
value because the Department could not
be certain that they were not from either
an NME country or a country with
general export subsidies.31
On May 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘CAFC’’) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC
2010), found that the {regression-based}
method for calculating wage rates, as
stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), uses
data not permitted by the statutory
requirements laid out in section 773 of
the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)).
The Department is continuing to
evaluate options for determining labor
values in light of the recent CAFC
decision. However, for these
preliminary results, we have calculated
an hourly wage rate to use in valuing
the respondent’s reported labor input by
averaging industry-specific earnings
and/or wages in countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC
and that are significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this
review, the Department is valuing labor
30 See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year
(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,
75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from
Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
23.
31 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008),
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
17824
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
using a simple average industry-specific
wage rate using earnings or wage data
reported under Chapter 5B by the
International Labor Organization
(‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an industry-specific
labor value, we relied on industryspecific labor data from the countries
we determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
A full description of the industryspecific wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum. The
Department calculated a simple average
industry-specific wage rate of $1.36 for
these preliminary results. Specifically,
for this review, the Department has
calculated the wage rate using a simple
average of the data provided to the ILO
under Sub-Classification 28 of the
ISIC—Revision 3 standard by countries
determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department finds the two-digit
description under International
Standard Industrial Classification—
Revision 3 (‘‘Manufacture of fabricated
metal products, except machinery and
equipment’’) to be the best available
wage rate surrogate value on the record
because it is specific and derived from
industries that produce merchandise
comparable to the subject merchandise.
Consequently, we averaged the ILO
industry-specific wage rate data or
earnings data available from the
following countries found to be
economically comparable to the PRC
and significant producers of comparable
merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt,
Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the Philippines,
Thailand, and Ukraine.32 For further
information on the calculation of the
wage rate, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
The Department valued truck freight
expenses using a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the infobanc
Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/
logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics
section of this Web site contains inland
freight truck rates between many large
Indian cities. The value is
contemporaneous with the POR.33
The Department valued electricity
using price data for small, medium, and
large industries, as published by the
Central Electricity Authority of the
Government of India in its publication
entitled ‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India,’’ dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to small, medium, and
large industries in India. We did not
inflate this value because utility rates
represent current rates, as indicated by
the effective dates listed for each of the
rates provided.34 We valued water using
the revised Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation water rates
available at https://www.midcindia.com/
water-supply.
At verification, we obtained records
from one month of the POR which allow
us to calculate a scrap offset that is more
specific to subject merchandise than
Jiuli TC’s reported scrap offset. We do
not, however, have these records for the
entire POR. Because necessary
information is not on the record for the
entire POR, pursuant to section 776(a) of
the Act, as facts available, we are basing
Jiuli TC’s POR scrap offset for subject
merchandise on record information
obtained at verification for one month of
the POR. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
The Department valued brokerage and
handling expenses using a price list for
procedures necessary to export a
standardized cargo of goods in India.
The price list is compiled based on a
survey of the procedural requirements
for trading a standard shipment of goods
by ocean freight in India that is
published in Doing Business 2009: India
by the World Bank. Because these data
were current throughout the POR, we
did not inflate the value for brokerage
and handling.35
The Department valued factory
overhead, selling, general, and
administrative expenses, and profit
using data from two Indian companies,
Ratnamani and Jindal, producers of
merchandise both identical and
comparable to the subject merchandise,
for the fiscal year January 1, 2009,
through March 31, 2010.36
Currency Conversion
The Department made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
These exchange rates are available on
Import Administration’s Web site at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily
determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margin exists:
Weighted-average percent margin
Exporter
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd./Huzhou Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ............................................
Disclosure
The Department will disclose the
calculations performed within five days
of the date of publication of this notice
to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit written
comments no later than 30 days after the
32 Because India (the primary surrogate country)
did not report wage data in ISIC–Revision 3, which
was relied upon for industry-specific wage rates in
these preliminary results, it is not among the
countries that the Department considered for
inclusion in the average.
33 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit
11.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.37 Parties that submit
comments are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue
and a brief summary of the argument.
Rebuttal comments must be limited to
the issues raised in the written
comments and may be filed no later
than five days after the deadline for
filing case briefs.38 Parties submitting
34 See
35 See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 7.
Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit
13.
36 See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 9.
Also note that Jindal changed its financial reporting
period from the calendar year (January 1 to
December 31) to the Indian fiscal calendar year
(April 1 to March 31). As a result, Jindal’s 2009–
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.01
written comments or rebuttals are
requested to provide the Department
with an additional copy of those
comments on CD–ROM. Any interested
party may request a hearing within 30
days of publication of these preliminary
results.39 Any hearing, if requested,
ordinarily will be held two days after
the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.40 Parties should confirm
2010 financial statement shows a 15 month period
(January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010) because it
reflects this transition.
37 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
38 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
39 See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
40 See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 62 / Thursday, March 31, 2011 / Notices
by telephone the date, time, and
location of the hearing two days before
the scheduled date.
The Department will issue the final
results of the administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) unless the time
limit is extended.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the
Department will determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the
Department calculated exporter/
importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for merchandise
subject to this review. Where the
respondent has reported reliable entered
values, the Department calculated
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales to each
importer (or customer). See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, we will apply
the assessment rate to the entered value
of the importer’s/customer’s entries
during the POR. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct
CBP to liquidate that importer’s (or
customer’s) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication
of the final results of this review. The
Department intends to instruct CBP to
liquidate entries containing subject
merchandise exported by the PRC-wide
entity at the PRC-wide rate in the final
results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
review for all shipments of subject
merchandise from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11:23 Mar 31, 2011
Jkt 223001
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the
exporter listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be that established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate
is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 55.21 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and
publishing these preliminary results of
administrative review in accordance
with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 25, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–7621 Filed 3–30–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, Requests for
Revocation in Part, and Deferral of
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) has received requests
to conduct administrative reviews of
various antidumping duty orders and
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17825
findings with February anniversary
dates. In accordance with the
Department’s regulations, we are
initiating those administrative reviews.
The Department received a request to
revoke two antidumping duty orders in
part. The Department also received a
request to defer the initiation of an
administrative review for one
antidumping duty order.
DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila E. Forbes, Office of AD/CVD
Operations, Customs Unit, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482–4697.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department has received timely
requests, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), for administrative reviews of
various antidumping and countervailing
duty orders and findings with February
anniversary dates. With respect to the
antidumping duty orders on Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India,
and Thailand, the initiation of the
antidumping duty administrative review
for these cases will be published in a
separate initiation notice. The
Department received timely requests to
revoke in part the antidumping duty
order on Stainless Steel Bar from India
with respect to one exporter and on
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the People’s Republic of China with
respect to one exporter. The Department
also received a request in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(c) to defer for one
year the initiation of the February 1,
2010, through January 31, 2011,
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on Stainless
Steel Bar from Japan. The Department
received no objections to this request
from any party cited in 19 CFR
351.213(c)(1)(ii).
All deadlines for the submission of
various types of information,
certifications, or comments or actions by
the Department discussed below refer to
the number of calendar days from the
applicable starting time.
Notice of No Sales
If a producer or exporter named in
this notice of initiation had no exports,
sales, or entries during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’), it must notify the
Department within 60 days of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. All submissions must be made
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303 and
are subject to verification in accordance
E:\FR\FM\31MR1.SGM
31MR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17819-17825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7621]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-930]
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
the first administrative review of the
[[Page 17820]]
antidumping duty order on circular welded austenitic stainless pressure
pipe (``austenitic pipe'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is September 5, 2008, through
February 28, 2010. The Department has preliminarily determined that
sales have not been made below normal value (``NV'') by the respondent
during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. We intend to issue the final results of this
review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this
notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Patrick O'Connor,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
0182 or (202) 482-0989 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 17, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on austenitic pipe from the PRC.\1\ On March
1, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the austenitic pipe order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Austenitic
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR
11351 (March 17, 2009).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 75 FR 9162 (March 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department received a timely request for an administrative
review of the austenitic pipe order from Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals
Co., Ltd. (``Jiuli TC'') on March 31, 2010, in accordance with section
751(a) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''). On April 27,
2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
initiation of an administrative review of the austenitic pipe order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
22107 (April 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued its initial and supplemental questionnaires
to Jiuli TC from May to December 2010. The Department received
questionnaire responses from June to December 2010. On July 30, 2010,
Petitioners \4\ submitted comments to the Department regarding certain
submissions and responses of Jiuli TC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Petitioners are Bristol Metals, LLC; Felker Brothers
Corporation; Marcegaglia U.S.A., Inc.; and Outokumpu Stainless
Products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 15, 2010, the Department released a letter to
interested parties which listed potential surrogate countries and
invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country and
surrogate value (``SV'') selection. Between August and October 2010,
Petitioners and Jiuli TC submitted publicly available SV information,
as well as comments and rebuttal comments on the selection of a
surrogate country and SVs. For a discussion of the selection of the
surrogate country, see ``Surrogate Country'' section below.
On November 19, 2010, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,
the Department extended the time period for completing the preliminary
results of review by 120 days.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From
the People's Republic of China: Extension of the Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
75 FR 70908 (November 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From January 10 to January 14, 2011, the Department conducted a
verification of Jiuli TC in the PRC. On January 26 and 27, 2011, the
Department verified Jiuli TC's U.S. affiliate in Houston, Texas.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order is circular welded austenitic
stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in outside diameter.
This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society
for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') A-312 or ASTM A-778
specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. ASTM
A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet ASTM A-
312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign
specifications. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless
mechanical tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign
specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining
furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249,
ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3)
specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings
7306.40.5005; 7306.40.5040; 7306.40.5062; 7306.40.5064; and
7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010;
7306.40.1015; 7306.40.5042; 7306.40.5044; 7306.40.5080; and
7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information provided by Jiuli TC using standard verification procedures
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the
examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification
results are outlined in the PRC and U.S. verification reports,\6\ the
public versions of which are available in the Central Records Unit,
Room 7046 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See memoranda to the file through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, entitled ``Verification of the
Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd.''
(``PRC verification report'') and ``Verification of the
Questionnaire Responses of Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd.'s
(``Jiuli TC'') U.S. affiliate Jiuli USA, Inc.'', dated February 25,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliation and Collapsing
Based on the evidence presented in Jiuli TC's questionnaire
responses and at verification, which is that Jiuli TC owns 75 percent
of Huzhou Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Jiuli SD
Co.''), we preliminarily find affiliation between Jiuli TC and Jiuli SD
Co. pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act.
In addition, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will
treat affiliated producers as a single entity, or ``collapse'' them,
where: (1) The producers have production facilities for producing
similar or identical products that would not require substantial
retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing
priorities; and (2) there is a significant potential for manipulation
of price or production. In determining whether a significant potential
for manipulation exists, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) states that the
Department may consider various factors, including: (i) The level of
common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or
board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an
affiliated firm; and (iii) whether the operations of the affiliated
firms are intertwined through the sharing of sales information,
involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of
facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the
affiliated producers.
The Department preliminarily concludes that the totality of the
record evidence supports collapsing Jiuli TC and Jiuli SD Co. into a
single entity, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). Accordingly,
the Department preliminarily based its margin
[[Page 17821]]
calculation on information submitted pertaining to Jiuli TC and Jiuli
SD Co. For further discussion on the Department's decision to collapse
Jiuli TC with Jiuli SD Co., see the memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Office Director, ``Whether to Collapse Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals
Co., Ltd. and Huzhou Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.'',
dated concurrently with this notice.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We are treating Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. and
Huzhou Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. as the combined
entity, ``Jiuli TC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Treatment
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. No party has challenged the
designation of the PRC as an NME country in this review. Accordingly,
the Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
When the Department reviews imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on
the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs'') valued in a
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of
the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are: (A) At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the
Department will normally value all FOPs in a single country, except for
labor.
During this review, the Department identified India, the
Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru as a non-exhaustive
list of countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC and for which good quality data is most likely
available.\8\ Once the countries that are economically comparable to
the PRC have been identified, the Department selects an appropriate
surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable
country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether
the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, to Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office
4, ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Circular Welded Austenitic
Stainless Pressure Pipe'' (August 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has preliminarily determined that it is appropriate
to use India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of
the Act based on the following: (A) It is at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC; (B) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise.\9\ Also, there is reliable data from India that
can be used to value the FOPs. Thus, the Department calculated NV using
publicly available Indian prices when available and appropriate to
value the FOPs of Jiuli TC.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See the financial statements of Ratnamani Metals & Tubes,
Ltd. (``Ratnamani'') and Jindal SAW, Ltd. (``Jindal'') for the
fiscal year January 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, in Petitioners'
October 12, 2010 SV submission at Exhibits 10 and 11. Ratnamani's
and Jindal's financial statements at 2, 39, 41, 42, and 44 and at
19, 26-29, 71, and 72, respectively, demonstrate that these
companies produce merchandise both identical and comparable to
subject merchandise. Hence, based on Ratnamani's and Jindal's
production experience during the POR, we determine that India is a
significant producer of identical and comparable merchandise.
\10\ See Memorandum to the File from Brandon Farlander and
Patrick O'Connor, International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, ``Administrative Review of Circular Welded
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of
China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' (March 25, 2011) (``Surrogate
Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly-available information to value FOPs until 20 days after
the date of publication of the preliminary results of this review.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under the test announced
in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991)
(``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy, then a separate rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent
was wholly foreign-owned and thus qualified for a separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiuli TC provided evidence that it is a publicly traded company on
the Shenzhen Stock Exchange with Jiuli Group Joint Stock Ltd., a
Chinese entity, as its primary shareholder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Jiuli TC's Section A response, dated June 7, 2010, at
3-5 and PRC verification report at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Department has analyzed whether Jiuli TC has demonstrated
the absence of de jure and de facto governmental control over its
export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export license; (2) legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Jiuli TC supports a preliminary finding of
de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the existence of
applicable legislative enactments
[[Page 17822]]
decentralizing control of Chinese companies; and (3) the implementation
of formal measures by the government decentralizing control of Chinese
companies.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Jiuli TC's Section A response, dated June 7, 2010, at
3-5 and PRC verification report at 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to
the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3)
whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the
respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses.\16\ The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact,
subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the
Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by Jiuli TC supports a preliminary finding of
de facto absence of governmental control based on statements and
supporting documentation showing that the company: (1) Set its own
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) has the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; (3) maintains autonomy from the
government in making decisions regarding the selection of management;
and (4) retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Jiuli TC's Section A response, dated June 7, 2010, at
5-7 and PRC verification report at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this review by
Jiuli TC demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government
control under the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted Jiuli TC separate
rate status.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparison
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine
whether sales of austenitic pipe to the United States by Jiuli TC were
made at less than NV, the Department compared the weighted-average
export price (``EP'') and constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as
described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department used
EP as the basis for U.S. price for Jiuli TC's sales where the first
sale to unaffiliated purchasers was made prior to importation. In
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, the Department calculated EP
for Jiuli TC by deducting inland freight from the plant to the port,
domestic brokerage and handling, international freight and marine
insurance expenses from the starting price charged to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United States.\19\ In accordance with
section 772(b) of the Act, the Department used CEP as the basis for
U.S. price for Jiuli TC's sales where Jiuli TC first sold subject
merchandise to its affiliated company in the United States (Jiuli USA,
Inc.), which in turn sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated U.S.
customers. 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, as adjusted under
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. The Department calculated CEP for
Jiuli TC based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States and made deductions, where applicable, from the U.S. sales price
for movement expenses (inland freight from the plant to the port and
domestic brokerage and handling), in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.\20\ In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of
the Act, the Department deducted early payment discounts, credit
expenses and indirect selling expenses from the U.S. price, all of
which relate to commercial activity in the United States. Also, the
Department deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)
and 772(f) of the Act. Additionally, for the expenses that were either
provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency, the
Department based the expenses on SVs, as appropriate. For details
regarding the CEP calculation, see Jiuli TC Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See memorandum from Brandon Farlander and Patrick O'Connor,
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office
4, to the File, ``Administrative Review of Circular Welded
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech
Metals Co., Ltd.'' (March 25, 2011) (``Jiuli TC Analysis
Memorandum'').
\20\ See Jiuli TC Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME country and the information does not permit the calculation
of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed
value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on FOPs
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17,
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOPs include, but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs, including depreciation. The
Department based NV on FOPs and consumption quantities reported by
Jiuli TC for materials, energy, labor and packing.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on FOP data reported by Jiuli TC. To obtain the
input costs used to calculate NV, the Department multiplied the
reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian
SVs. As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, the
Department added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using
the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
respondent's factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the
respondent's factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision
in
[[Page 17823]]
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
A detailed description of all SVs used for Jiuli TC can be found in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
In selecting SVs, the Department considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.\22\ Further, in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act and Departmental practice,
the Department selected, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-
export average values, contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific,
and tax-exclusive.\23\ In the instant review, the Department used
Indian import statistics from the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA''), as
published by Global Trade Information Services, and other publicly
available Indian sources in order to calculate SVs for Jiuli TC's FOPs
(i.e., direct materials, energy, packing materials) and certain
movement expenses. The record shows that data in the GTA Indian import
statistics, as well as those from the other Indian sources, are
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\24\
In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available
information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value factors, we
adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
Index as published in the International Monetary Fund's International
Financial Statistics.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; Final Results of First New Shipper Review
and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
\23\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\24\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 1.
\25\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiuli TC reported that one of its raw material inputs, steel, was
sourced in part from market-economy countries and paid for in market-
economy currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent
sources inputs from a market-economy supplier in meaningful quantities
(i.e., not insignificant quantities), the Department normally will only
use the actual price paid by the respondent to value those inputs
except when prices may have been distorted by findings of dumping by
the PRC and/or subsidies.\26\ Where the facts developed in either U.S.
or third-country countervailing duty findings include the existence of
subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly
available, non-industry specific export subsidies), the Department will
have reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from the
country granting the subsidies may be subsidized.\27\ Information
reported by Jiuli TC demonstrates that it did not purchase significant
quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more) of steel from market-economy
suppliers. Thus, to value steel, the Department weight-averaged the
market-economy purchase price and the appropriate surrogate value for
steel using the market economy and NME percentages of the reported
total volume of purchases.\28\ Where appropriate, we added freight to
the market-economy purchase price of steel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296,
27366 (May 19, 1997); see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial
Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part,
66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (``TRBs 1998-1999''), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
\27\ See TRBs 1998-1999 at Comment 1; see also Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15,
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F.
Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003).
\28\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with legislative history, the Department continues to
apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.\29\ In this
regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to
disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand
because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\30\ Based on the
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to
all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR,
the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted
from these subsidies. Therefore, the Department has not used prices
from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating the Indian
import-based SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) at 590.
\30\ See e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea:
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Department disregarded prices from NME countries.
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value because
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an
NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged
in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC
2010), found that the {regression-based{time} method for calculating
wage rates, as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), uses data not
permitted by the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the
Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)).
The Department is continuing to evaluate options for determining
labor values in light of the recent CAFC decision. However, for these
preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in
valuing the respondent's reported labor input by averaging industry-
specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable
merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this review, the Department is
valuing labor
[[Page 17824]]
using a simple average industry-specific wage rate using earnings or
wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the International Labor
Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-specific labor value, we
relied on industry-specific labor data from the countries we determined
to be both economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers
of comparable merchandise. A full description of the industry-specific
wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum. The Department calculated a simple average industry-
specific wage rate of $1.36 for these preliminary results.
Specifically, for this review, the Department has calculated the wage
rate using a simple average of the data provided to the ILO under Sub-
Classification 28 of the ISIC--Revision 3 standard by countries
determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds
the two-digit description under International Standard Industrial
Classification--Revision 3 (``Manufacture of fabricated metal products,
except machinery and equipment'') to be the best available wage rate
surrogate value on the record because it is specific and derived from
industries that produce merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-specific wage
rate data or earnings data available from the following countries found
to be economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers of
comparable merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the
Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine.\32\ For further information on the
calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Because India (the primary surrogate country) did not
report wage data in ISIC-Revision 3, which was relied upon for
industry-specific wage rates in these preliminary results, it is not
among the countries that the Department considered for inclusion in
the average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit
average rate calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian
cities. The value is contemporaneous with the POR.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued electricity using price data for small,
medium, and large industries, as published by the Central Electricity
Authority of the Government of India in its publication entitled
``Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India,'' dated March 2008. These electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly available information on tax-exclusive
electricity rates charged to small, medium, and large industries in
India. We did not inflate this value because utility rates represent
current rates, as indicated by the effective dates listed for each of
the rates provided.\34\ We valued water using the revised Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation water rates available at https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At verification, we obtained records from one month of the POR
which allow us to calculate a scrap offset that is more specific to
subject merchandise than Jiuli TC's reported scrap offset. We do not,
however, have these records for the entire POR. Because necessary
information is not on the record for the entire POR, pursuant to
section 776(a) of the Act, as facts available, we are basing Jiuli TC's
POR scrap offset for subject merchandise on record information obtained
at verification for one month of the POR. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
The Department valued brokerage and handling expenses using a price
list for procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods
in India. The price list is compiled based on a survey of the
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean freight in India that is published in Doing Business 2009: India
by the World Bank. Because these data were current throughout the POR,
we did not inflate the value for brokerage and handling.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued factory overhead, selling, general, and
administrative expenses, and profit using data from two Indian
companies, Ratnamani and Jindal, producers of merchandise both
identical and comparable to the subject merchandise, for the fiscal
year January 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 9. Also note that
Jindal changed its financial reporting period from the calendar year
(January 1 to December 31) to the Indian fiscal calendar year (April
1 to March 31). As a result, Jindal's 2009-2010 financial statement
shows a 15 month period (January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010) because
it reflects this transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currency Conversion
The Department made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank. These exchange rates are available on Import
Administration's Web site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd./Huzhou 0.01
Jiuli Welded Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose the calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\37\ Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with
each argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the
argument. Rebuttal comments must be limited to the issues raised in the
written comments and may be filed no later than five days after the
deadline for filing case briefs.\38\ Parties submitting written
comments or rebuttals are requested to provide the Department with an
additional copy of those comments on CD-ROM. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary
results.\39\ Any hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two
days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs.\40\
Parties should confirm
[[Page 17825]]
by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days
before the scheduled date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\40\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will issue the final results of the administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) unless the time limit
is extended.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance
with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department calculated
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported
reliable entered values, the Department calculated importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each
importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/
customer's entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to
liquidate that importer's (or customer's) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
review. The Department intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate in the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this review for all shipments of
subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the
cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be required for that company);
(2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters
not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 55.21 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results
of administrative review in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: March 25, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-7621 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
