Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan, 33210-33213 [2011-14031]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33210-33213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14031]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-008]


Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan for the period of review (POR) 
of May 1, 2009, to April 30, 2010. We preliminarily determine that 
sales of subject merchandise by Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh 
Phui) have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the publication of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1131 or (202) 
482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On May 7, 1984, the Department published in the Federal Register an 
antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 
from Taiwan. See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 
From Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Order, 49 FR 19369 (May 7, 1984) 
(Antidumping Duty Order). On May 3, 2009, the Department issued a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order 
for the POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 
75 FR 23236, 23237 (May 3, 2010). On June 1, 2010, a domestic producer, 
U.S. Steel Corporation (petitioner), requested an administrative review 
of Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui) and Yieh Hsing Enterprise 
Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing). Yieh Phui requested an administrative review of 
itself on June 1, 2010. On June 30, 2010, the Department published the 
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review. 
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30, 
2010). The Department issued its original questionnaire to Yieh Phui 
and Yieh Hsing on July 1, 2010.
    On November 18, 2010, the Department published a notice rescinding 
the review with respect to Yieh Hsing, following petitioner's 
withdrawal of its request for an administrative review of that company. 
See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Notice of 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
70723 (November 18, 2010).
    Yieh Phui submitted a response to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire on July 29, 2010, and a response to Sections B, C, and D 
of the Department's questionnaire on August 23, 2010. In response to 
the Department's September 1, 2010, supplemental questionnaire 
pertaining to Yieh Phui's Section A response, Yieh Phui submitted a 
response on September 29, 2010. In response to the Department's 
September 13, 2010, supplemental questionnaire pertaining to Yieh 
Phui's Section D response, Yieh Phui submitted a response on October 
15, 2010. In response to the Department's October 14, 2010, 
supplemental questionnaire covering Sections A-C, Yieh Phui submitted a 
response on November 9, 2010. In response to the Department's December 
10, 2010, supplemental questionnaire covering Sections A-D, Yieh Phui 
submitted a response on January 7, 2011. In response to the 
Department's January 24, 2011 supplemental questionnaire, Yieh Phui 
submitted a response on February 14, 2011. On March 25, 2011, the 
petitioner submitted comments and recommendations for the Department to 
consider in reaching its preliminary results. On April 20, 2011, Yieh 
Phui provided a response to the petitioner's March 25, 2011 comments 
and recommendations.
    On January 20, 2011, the Department extended the deadline for 
completion of the preliminary results by 120 days, to May 31, 2011. See 
Circular Welded Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 
FR 3612 (January 20, 2011).

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is certain circular welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are defined as: Welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section, with walls not 
thinner than 0.065 inch, and 0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5 inches 
in outside diameter, currently classified under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025, 
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise subject to this order is 
dispositive.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes to the United States were made at less than NV, we 
compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for 
Yieh Phui, we compared the EPs of individual transactions, as 
applicable, to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product in 
the appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales 
made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section below.

Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP), as 
defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the 
producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of 
the Act (see discussion immediately below). We calculated an EP for 
Yieh Phui's U.S. sales because they were made directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and

[[Page 33211]]

constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the 
facts on the record.
    For EP sales, we made deductions from the starting price (gross 
unit price), where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. Movement expenses included foreign 
inland freight (from plant to warehouse, and from plant to port of 
exportation), foreign warehousing expenses, foreign brokerage fees, 
foreign trade promotion fees, foreign harbor maintenance fees, and 
international freight (consisting of ocean freight, bill of lading 
documentation fees, and containerization fees).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity 
is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market situation 
that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United States. The 
statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be 
considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the 
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
    We found that Yieh Phui had a viable home market for circular 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes because its home market sales, by 
quantity, exceeded the five percent threshold. See Yieh Phui's November 
9, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response, at Exhibit 3.
    Yieh Phui submitted home market sales data for purposes of the 
calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in 
the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices'' 
section below.

B. Arm's-Length Sales

    The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to 
affiliated customers, which, according to Yieh Phui, consumed the 
merchandise. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were 
made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales 
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to that 
affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent 
of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the 
unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the 
sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison 
Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Yieh Phui's sales to 
affiliated parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were 
disregarded in the cost test and in the comparison to U.S. sales.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product 
by the respondent were made at prices below the cost of production 
(COP) during the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act. Therefore, we required Yieh Phui to submit a response to 
Section D of the Department's Questionnaire.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding as of the initiation of this 
administrative review (see Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 31958, 31960 (June 8, 2004) (unchanged 
in final results, Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 
FR 58390 (September 30, 2004)). The respondent in the most recently 
completed segment of the proceeding as of the initiation of this 
administrative review was Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. However, 
the Department found Yieh Phui to be the successor-in-interest to 
Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. See Certain Circular Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Changed Circumstance Review, 70 FR 71802 (November 30, 2005). 
Accordingly, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
home market sales of the foreign like product by the respondent were 
made at prices below the COP during the POR. See section 773(b) of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP by model based on the sum of materials, 
fabrication, general and administrative (G&A), and interest 
expenses.\2\ For more details, see ``Analysis Memorandum for Yieh Phui 
Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui): Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 
and Tubes from Taiwan (A-583-008), May 1, 2009-April 30, 2010'' (``Yieh 
Phui Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''). Based on the review of record 
evidence, Yieh Phui did not appear to experience significant changes in 
cost of manufacturing during the POR. Therefore, we followed our normal 
methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Memorandum 
for the Preliminary Results: Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd.: 
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan (A-583-
008), May 1, 2009-April 30, 2010'' regarding Yieh Phui's reported 
COP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent to its 
home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., 
normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether 
such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the 
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    We disregard below-cost sales where: (1) 20 Percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at 
prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) 
of the Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average 
COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product 
were at prices that would not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the 
Act. We found Yieh Phui made sales below cost and we disregarded such 
sales where appropriate. See ``Yieh Phui Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum.''

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We determined NV for Yieh Phui as follows. We made deductions from 
the gross price to account for discounts and rebates. We deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also deducted home market 
movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 
addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale 
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, 
we made adjustments to normal value for comparison to Yieh Phui's EP 
transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home 
market sales (i.e., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses (i.e., credit expenses, bank charges, and cargo certification 
fees) and U.S. commissions. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, 
and 19 CFR 351.410(c). Where we compared Yieh Phui's U.S. sales to home 
market sales

[[Page 33212]]

of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be 
based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value 
(CV). Accordingly, for those models of circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes for which we could not determine the NV based on 
comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a 
comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the 
COP test, we based NV on CV.
    Sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act provide that CV shall 
be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
imported merchandise plus amounts for selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, profit, and U.S. 
packing expenses. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication 
based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice. 
We based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by 
the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption 
in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 
the Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We deducted direct 
selling expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit 
expenses). See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c). We added U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit 
expenses, bank charges, and cargo certification fees) and U.S. 
commissions to the NV.

F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV 
based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade 
(LOT) as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there 
are no sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison 
market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is 
that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether comparison 
market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length affiliated) 
customers. The Department identifies the LOT based on: The starting 
price or constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for 
EP sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of 
the Act (for CEP sales). If the comparison-market sales were at a 
different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in 
LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    Yieh Phui indicated there was a single level of trade for all sales 
in both markets, and petitioner has not claimed that multiple levels of 
trade existed for Yieh Phui. Yieh Phui provided information regarding 
channels of distribution and selling activities performed for different 
categories of customers. See Yieh Phui's July 29, 2010, Section A 
response, at pages 12-14 and Exhibit 8. Yieh Phui's chart of numerous 
specific selling functions indicates the selling functions performed 
for sales in both markets are virtually identical, with no significant 
variation across the broader categories of sales process/marketing 
support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality 
assurance/warranty services. For more details, see Yieh Phui 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. We have preliminarily determined there 
is one single level of trade for all sales in both the home market and 
the U.S. market and, therefore, that no basis exists for a level of 
trade adjustment.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the 
following weighted-average margin exists for the period May 1, 2009, 
through April 30, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Producer/
                                                             exporter
                    Weighted- average                         margin
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd...........................           11.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments must be limited to issues raised in case briefs or 
written comments, and may be filed no later than five days after 
submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of 
the issues; (2) a brief summary of the arguments; and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should 
provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of 
any such comments on diskette. An interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days 
after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working 
day thereafter. The Department intends to issue the final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3) 
of the Act.

Assessment

    Upon completion of the administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all 
appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue appropriate 
appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review 
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final 
results of this review.
    Because Yieh Phui did not report the entered value of its sales, we 
will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty 
assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales of each importer (or customer) and 
dividing each of these amounts by the respective quantities (by weight) 
associated with those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment 
rates are de minimis, in accordance with

[[Page 33213]]

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 
importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratios based on 
estimated entered values.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review for each importer (or 
customer) for which the importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad 
valorem ratio is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratio is de minimis 
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in the 
final results where the reviewed companies did not know the merchandise 
it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 
exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there was no rate calculated in this review for the 
intermediary involved in the transaction. See id., 68 FR at 23954.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for Yieh Phui will be the rate established in the final results of 
this review, except if a rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore 
de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit 
rate will be 9.70 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order.
    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of antidumping administrative review are 
issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-14031 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P