Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 49437-49439 [2011-20331]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
Dated: August 5, 2011.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Agency: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Title: Billfish Tagging Report.
OMB Control Number: 0648–0009.
Form Number(s): NOAA 88–162.
Type of Request: Regular submission
(extension of a current information
collection).
Number of Respondents: 1,000.
Average Hours Per Response: 5
minutes.
Burden Hours: 83.
Needs and Uses: This request is for
extension of a currently approved
information collection.
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s
Southwest Fisheries Science Center
operates a billfish tagging program.
Tagging supplies are provided to
volunteer anglers. When anglers catch
and release a tagged fish they submit a
brief report on the fish and the location
of the tagging. The information obtained
is used in conjunction with tag returns
to determine billfish migration patterns,
mortality rates, and similar information
useful in the management of the billfish
fisheries. This program is authorized
under 16 U.S.C. 760(e), Study of
migratory game fish; waters; research;
purpose.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
OMB Desk Officer: OIRA
Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
[FR Doc. 2011–20286 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–805]
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Mexico. This administrative
review covers mandatory respondents
Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L.
de C.V. (Mueller), Southland Pipe
Nipples Company, Inc. (Southland),
Lamina y Placa Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
(Lamina), and Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de
C.V. (TUNA).1 The period of review
(POR) is November 1, 2009, through
October 31, 2010.
The respondents provided
certifications of no shipments. We
sought further clarification of a specific
entry indicated by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data and
analyzed parties’ explanations of this
entry. The Department’s review of
import data supports the claims of the
respondents. We preliminarily
determine that the respondents did not
have reviewable sales, shipments, or
entries during the POR. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6312 or (202) 482–
0469, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 The Department determined that Lamina is the
successor-in-interest to TUNA. See Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain Circular Welded
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico, 75 FR 82374
(December 30, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49437
Background
On November 2, 1992, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on certain circular welded non-alloy
steel pipe from Mexico. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea
(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela and
Amendment to Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from
Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992)
(Antidumping Duty Order). On
November 1, 2010, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review in the
Federal Register. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 75
FR 67079 (November 1, 2010). On
November 30, 2010, the Department
received multiple requests for
administrative review. Mueller
requested a review of itself and
Southland. Southland requested a
review of itself and Mueller. U.S. Steel
Corporation (U.S. Steel) requested
reviews of Mueller, Southland, TUNA,
and Lamina. Wheatland Tube Company
(Wheatland) requested reviews of
Mueller and Southland. Allied Tube
and Conduit and TMK IPSCO Tubulars
(Allied/TMK) requested reviews of
Mueller, Southland, TUNA, and
Lamina. On December 28, 2010, the
Department published a Federal
Register notice initiating an
antidumping administrative review. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010)
(Initiation Notice). The Department
stated in its initiation of this review that
it intended to rely on CBP data to select
respondents if respondent selection was
considered appropriate. See Initiation
Notice. For the purpose of potential
respondent selection, we made a data
inquiry to CBP and placed certain
documents from this data query on the
record. See memorandum from Mark
Flessner to the File entitled, ‘‘Certain
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Carbon
Steel Pipe from Mexico: Customs and
Border Protection Documents,’’ dated
March 17, 2011 (CBP Documents
Memorandum). For further discussion
of these documents, see the ‘‘No
Shipments Claims’’ section below.
On January 25, 2011, Wheatland
requested that the Department conduct
a duty absorption inquiry with regard to
Mueller, Lamina, and Ternium
Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium).
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
49438
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Mueller responded to this request on
February 22, 2011.
On January 26, 2011, the Department
issued its standard antidumping
questionnaire to Mueller and Southland
(both represented by the same counsel)
and to Lamina (at the time, the
successor-in-interest to TUNA).
On February 16, 2011, Lamina
claimed that it and TUNA (on whose
behalf it was responding) had made no
shipments or entries for consumption of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. On February 25,
2011, Mueller claimed that it had made
no shipments or entries for
consumption of subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR,
providing documentation in support of
its claim. On March 11, 2011, Mueller
provided additional documentation in
support of its claim.
On April 7, 2011, Wheatland
requested that the Department conduct
verifications of both Mueller and
Lamina. On April 8, 2011, Lamina
responded to Wheatland’s verification
request.
On April 13, 2011, Wheatland
submitted comments concerning the
CBP data contained in the March 17,
2011, memorandum cited above. On
April 19, 2011, U.S. Steel placed the
verification report from the previous
segment of this proceeding on the
record of the instant segment.
On May 19, 2011, we sent a ‘‘No
Shipments Inquiry’’ to CBP to confirm
that there were no shipments or entries
of certain circular welded non-alloy
steel pipe from Mexico by Mueller
during the POR. On July 19, 2011, we
sent additional such inquiries to CBP to
confirm that there were no shipments or
entries of certain circular welded nonalloy steel pipe from Mexico by TUNA,
Lamina, and Southland during the POR.
On July 19, 2011, Southland submitted
a clarification of its February 25, 2011,
submission; it stated specifically that
Southland (as an entity distinct from
Mueller) neither produced nor exported
any subject merchandise during the
POR. We received no information from
CBP to contradict the statements of
Mueller, Southland, and Lamina
(including TUNA) and the results of our
data query that there were no shipments
or entries of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are circular welded non-alloy steel
pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters
(16 inches) in outside diameter,
regardless of wall thickness, surface
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
end finish (plain end, beveled end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled).
These pipes and tubes are generally
known as standard pipes and tubes and
are intended for the low pressure
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,
and other liquids and gases in plumbing
and heating systems, air conditioning
units, automatic sprinkler systems, and
other related uses, and generally meet
ASTM A–53 specifications. Standard
pipe may also be used for light loadbearing applications, such as for fence
tubing, and as structural pipe tubing
used for framing and support members
for reconstruction or load-bearing
purposes in the construction,
shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment,
and related industries. Unfinished
conduit pipe is also included in these
orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes
within the physical description outlined
above are included within the scope of
this order, except line pipe, oil country
tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical
tubing, pipe and tube hollows for
redraws, finished scaffolding, and
finished conduit. Standard pipe that is
dual or triple certified/stenciled that
enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind
used for oil or gas pipelines is also not
included in this order.
The merchandise covered by the order
and subject to this review are currently
classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
at subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,
7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,
7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of these proceedings is
dispositive.
Preliminary Determination of No
Shipments
A. No Shipments Claims
As noted above, the respondents
submitted letters to the Department
indicating that they made no shipments
or entries of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR that are
subject to this administrative review. In
response to the Department’s query,
CBP data showed that a single entry of
subject merchandise may have entered
for consumption into the United States
during the POR. See CBP Documents
Memorandum at Attachment 1. In its
February 25, 2011, claim of no
shipments, Mueller and Southland
addressed the status of this single entry,
providing additional documentation on
March 11, 2011. The documentation
submitted by Mueller and Southland
demonstrated that the single entry in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
question had been mischaracterized as
subject merchandise. This
documentation demonstrated that
Mueller and Southland had applied
for—and received CBP approval for—a
post-entry amendment to the entry in
question. This is confirmed by the
Department’s ‘‘No Shipments Inquiry’’
to CBP with regard to Mueller. CBP
provided no information identifying
additional Mueller shipments. The
customs documents related to the single
suspect entry were the same that had
been submitted by Mueller and
Southland to explain that the entry had
been mischaracterized by Southland’s
customs broker. See CBP Documents
Memorandum at Attachment 2. The
above explanation is equally applicable
to TUNA, which is confirmed by the
Department’s ‘‘No Shipments Inquiry’’
to CBP with regard to TUNA. See CBP
Documents Memorandum (containing
proprietary information not susceptible
to public summary).
In addition, as stated above, the
Department sent a ‘‘No Shipments
Inquiry’’ to CBP with regard to Lamina
and Southland to confirm that there
were no shipments or entries of certain
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Mexico by either respondent
during the POR. We received no
information from CBP to contradict the
results of our data query and the claims
made by each respondent.
Therefore, because the evidence on
the record indicates that Mueller,
Southland, TUNA, and Lamina made no
shipments of subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR, we
preliminarily determine that there are
no reviewable transactions during the
POR for each of the respondents for
whom reviews were requested.
Since the implementation of the 1997
regulations, our practice concerning no
shipment respondents had been to
rescind the administrative review if the
respondent certifies that it had no
shipments and we have confirmed
through our examination of CBP data
that there were no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19,
1997); see also Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 70 FR 53161, 53162 (September
5, 2007), unchanged in Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Japan: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006). In
such circumstances, we normally
instructed CBP to liquidate any entries
from the no shipment company at the
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
deposit rate in effect on the date of
entry.
In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic
assessment’’ clarification, we explained
that, where respondents in an
administrative review demonstrate that
they had no knowledge of sales through
resellers to the United States, we would
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the
proceeding. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice).
Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation
instructions do not alleviate the
concerns which the May 2003
clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to
instruct CBP to liquidate any existing
entries of merchandise produced by the
respondents, and exported by other
parties at the all-others rate, should we
continue to find that the respondents
had no shipments of subject
merchandise in the POR in our final
results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal
From the Russian Federation:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010),
unchanged in Magnesium Metal From
the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 56989, 56990 (September
17, 2010). In addition, the Department
finds that it is more consistent with the
May 2003 clarification not to rescind the
review in its entirety but, rather, to
complete the review with respect to the
respondents, issuing appropriate
instructions to CBP based on the final
results of the review. See the
‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this
notice below.
or four-year interval from publication of
the antidumping duty order, a duty
absorption inquiry is not authorized.
See Antidumping Duty Order.
B. Duty Absorption
On January 25, 2011, Wheatland
requested that the Department conduct
a duty absorption inquiry with regard to
Mueller, Lamina, and Ternium
Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium).
Mueller responded to this request on
February 22, 2011. Section 751(a)(4) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), provides for the Department, if
requested, to determine during an
administrative review initiated two or
four years after publication of the order
whether antidumping duties have been
absorbed by the foreign producer or
exporter if the subject merchandise is
sold in the United States through an
affiliated importer. See also 19 CFR
351.213(j). First, Ternium is not a
respondent in this administrative
review. Notwithstanding, because this
review was not initiated at the two-year
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the
administrative review, the Department
shall determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212. The Department intends to
issue appraisement instructions directly
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this
review.
As noted above, the Department
clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’
regulation on May 6, 2003. See
Assessment Policy Notice. This
clarification will apply to POR entries
by each respondent company if we
continue to make a final determination
of no shipments based upon their
certifications that they made no POR
shipments of subject merchandise for
which they had knowledge of U.S.
destination. We will instruct CBP to
liquidate these entries at the all-others
rate established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation (32.62 percent) if
there is no rate for the intermediary
involved in the transaction. See
Assessment Policy Notice for a full
discussion of this clarification.
The preliminary results of
administrative review and this notice
are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: August 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–20331 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–867]
Large Power Transformers From the
Republic of Korea: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angelica Mendoza at (202) 482–3019 or
David Cordell at 202–482–0408, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49439
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On July 14, 2011, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) received
a petition concerning imports of large
liquid dielectric power transformers
(‘‘large power transformers’’) from the
Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), filed in
proper form on behalf of ABB Inc., Delta
Star, Inc. and Pennsylvania Transformer
Technology, Inc., (collectively, ‘‘the
Petitioners’’). See the Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Large Power Transformers from the
Republic of Korea, filed on July 14, 2011
(‘‘the Petition’’). On July 20, 2011, the
Department issued a request for
additional information and clarification
of certain areas of the Petition. The
Petitioners filed a response to this
request on July 26, 2011 (hereinafter,
‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). In
accordance with section 732(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), the Petitioners allege that imports
of large power transformers from Korea
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value,
within the meaning of section 731 of the
Act, and that such imports are
materially injuring, or threatening
material injury to, an industry in the
United States. On July 28, 2011, the
Petitioners filed an amendment to the
Petition in which they revised the scope
language, amended the lost sales listing
and provided the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) page for HTSUS number
8504.90.9540, (hereinafter, ‘‘Second
Supplement to the Petition’’). On
August 1, 2011, the Petitioners filed an
additional amendment to the Petition
with respect to industry support for the
Petition (hereinafter, ‘‘Third
Supplement to the Petition’’).
On July 28, 2011, the Department
received a standing challenge to the
Petition by Hyosung Corporation, a
Korean producer and exporter of the
subject merchandise, and its U.S.
affiliate HICO America Inc.
(collectively, ‘‘Hyosung’’). On July 29,
2011, the Department received a
standing challenge to the petition by
Hyundai Corporation, a Korean
producer and exporter of the subject
merchandise, and its U.S. affiliate
Hyundai Corporation, USA
(collectively, ‘‘Hyundai’’). The
Petitioners responded to HICO’s and
Hyundai’s submission on August 1,
2011 (hereinafter, ‘‘Fourth Supplement
to the Petition’’).
The Department finds that the
Petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49437-49439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel
pipe from Mexico. This administrative review covers mandatory
respondents Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mueller),
Southland Pipe Nipples Company, Inc. (Southland), Lamina y Placa
Comercial, S.A. de C.V. (Lamina), and Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V.
(TUNA).\1\ The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2009, through
October 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department determined that Lamina is the successor-in-
interest to TUNA. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe From Mexico, 75 FR 82374 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The respondents provided certifications of no shipments. We sought
further clarification of a specific entry indicated by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) data and analyzed parties' explanations of this
entry. The Department's review of import data supports the claims of
the respondents. We preliminarily determine that the respondents did
not have reviewable sales, shipments, or entries during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6312 or (202) 482-0469, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 2, 1992, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico. See
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and
Venezuela and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453
(November 2, 1992) (Antidumping Duty Order). On November 1, 2010, the
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review in the Federal Register. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 67079 (November 1,
2010). On November 30, 2010, the Department received multiple requests
for administrative review. Mueller requested a review of itself and
Southland. Southland requested a review of itself and Mueller. U.S.
Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) requested reviews of Mueller, Southland,
TUNA, and Lamina. Wheatland Tube Company (Wheatland) requested reviews
of Mueller and Southland. Allied Tube and Conduit and TMK IPSCO
Tubulars (Allied/TMK) requested reviews of Mueller, Southland, TUNA,
and Lamina. On December 28, 2010, the Department published a Federal
Register notice initiating an antidumping administrative review. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28,
2010) (Initiation Notice). The Department stated in its initiation of
this review that it intended to rely on CBP data to select respondents
if respondent selection was considered appropriate. See Initiation
Notice. For the purpose of potential respondent selection, we made a
data inquiry to CBP and placed certain documents from this data query
on the record. See memorandum from Mark Flessner to the File entitled,
``Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Carbon Steel Pipe from Mexico:
Customs and Border Protection Documents,'' dated March 17, 2011 (CBP
Documents Memorandum). For further discussion of these documents, see
the ``No Shipments Claims'' section below.
On January 25, 2011, Wheatland requested that the Department
conduct a duty absorption inquiry with regard to Mueller, Lamina, and
Ternium Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium).
[[Page 49438]]
Mueller responded to this request on February 22, 2011.
On January 26, 2011, the Department issued its standard antidumping
questionnaire to Mueller and Southland (both represented by the same
counsel) and to Lamina (at the time, the successor-in-interest to
TUNA).
On February 16, 2011, Lamina claimed that it and TUNA (on whose
behalf it was responding) had made no shipments or entries for
consumption of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
On February 25, 2011, Mueller claimed that it had made no shipments or
entries for consumption of subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR, providing documentation in support of its claim. On
March 11, 2011, Mueller provided additional documentation in support of
its claim.
On April 7, 2011, Wheatland requested that the Department conduct
verifications of both Mueller and Lamina. On April 8, 2011, Lamina
responded to Wheatland's verification request.
On April 13, 2011, Wheatland submitted comments concerning the CBP
data contained in the March 17, 2011, memorandum cited above. On April
19, 2011, U.S. Steel placed the verification report from the previous
segment of this proceeding on the record of the instant segment.
On May 19, 2011, we sent a ``No Shipments Inquiry'' to CBP to
confirm that there were no shipments or entries of certain circular
welded non-alloy steel pipe from Mexico by Mueller during the POR. On
July 19, 2011, we sent additional such inquiries to CBP to confirm that
there were no shipments or entries of certain circular welded non-alloy
steel pipe from Mexico by TUNA, Lamina, and Southland during the POR.
On July 19, 2011, Southland submitted a clarification of its February
25, 2011, submission; it stated specifically that Southland (as an
entity distinct from Mueller) neither produced nor exported any subject
merchandise during the POR. We received no information from CBP to
contradict the statements of Mueller, Southland, and Lamina (including
TUNA) and the results of our data query that there were no shipments or
entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are circular welded non-alloy
steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4
millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall
thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled).
These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes
and are intended for the low pressure conveyance of water, steam,
natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard
pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for
fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and
support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the
construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related
industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in these orders.
All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description
outlined above are included within the scope of this order, except line
pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished
conduit. Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that
enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines is
also not included in this order.
The merchandise covered by the order and subject to this review are
currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,
7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and
7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of these proceedings is dispositive.
Preliminary Determination of No Shipments
A. No Shipments Claims
As noted above, the respondents submitted letters to the Department
indicating that they made no shipments or entries of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR that are subject to
this administrative review. In response to the Department's query, CBP
data showed that a single entry of subject merchandise may have entered
for consumption into the United States during the POR. See CBP
Documents Memorandum at Attachment 1. In its February 25, 2011, claim
of no shipments, Mueller and Southland addressed the status of this
single entry, providing additional documentation on March 11, 2011. The
documentation submitted by Mueller and Southland demonstrated that the
single entry in question had been mischaracterized as subject
merchandise. This documentation demonstrated that Mueller and Southland
had applied for--and received CBP approval for--a post-entry amendment
to the entry in question. This is confirmed by the Department's ``No
Shipments Inquiry'' to CBP with regard to Mueller. CBP provided no
information identifying additional Mueller shipments. The customs
documents related to the single suspect entry were the same that had
been submitted by Mueller and Southland to explain that the entry had
been mischaracterized by Southland's customs broker. See CBP Documents
Memorandum at Attachment 2. The above explanation is equally applicable
to TUNA, which is confirmed by the Department's ``No Shipments
Inquiry'' to CBP with regard to TUNA. See CBP Documents Memorandum
(containing proprietary information not susceptible to public summary).
In addition, as stated above, the Department sent a ``No Shipments
Inquiry'' to CBP with regard to Lamina and Southland to confirm that
there were no shipments or entries of certain circular welded non-alloy
steel pipe from Mexico by either respondent during the POR. We received
no information from CBP to contradict the results of our data query and
the claims made by each respondent.
Therefore, because the evidence on the record indicates that
Mueller, Southland, TUNA, and Lamina made no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR, we preliminarily
determine that there are no reviewable transactions during the POR for
each of the respondents for whom reviews were requested.
Since the implementation of the 1997 regulations, our practice
concerning no shipment respondents had been to rescind the
administrative review if the respondent certifies that it had no
shipments and we have confirmed through our examination of CBP data
that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19,
1997); see also Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 70 FR 53161, 53162 (September 5, 2007), unchanged
in Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 (January
3, 2006). In such circumstances, we normally instructed CBP to
liquidate any entries from the no shipment company at the
[[Page 49439]]
deposit rate in effect on the date of entry.
In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).
Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any
existing entries of merchandise produced by the respondents, and
exported by other parties at the all-others rate, should we continue to
find that the respondents had no shipments of subject merchandise in
the POR in our final results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the
Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989, 56990 (September
17, 2010). In addition, the Department finds that it is more consistent
with the May 2003 clarification not to rescind the review in its
entirety but, rather, to complete the review with respect to the
respondents, issuing appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final
results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of this
notice below.
B. Duty Absorption
On January 25, 2011, Wheatland requested that the Department
conduct a duty absorption inquiry with regard to Mueller, Lamina, and
Ternium Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (Ternium). Mueller responded to this
request on February 22, 2011. Section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), provides for the Department, if requested,
to determine during an administrative review initiated two or four
years after publication of the order whether antidumping duties have
been absorbed by the foreign producer or exporter if the subject
merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated
importer. See also 19 CFR 351.213(j). First, Ternium is not a
respondent in this administrative review. Notwithstanding, because this
review was not initiated at the two-year or four-year interval from
publication of the antidumping duty order, a duty absorption inquiry is
not authorized. See Antidumping Duty Order.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date
of publication of the final results of this review.
As noted above, the Department clarified its ``automatic
assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice.
This clarification will apply to POR entries by each respondent company
if we continue to make a final determination of no shipments based upon
their certifications that they made no POR shipments of subject
merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. We will
instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the all-others rate
established in the less-than-fair-value investigation (32.62 percent)
if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction.
See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this
clarification.
The preliminary results of administrative review and this notice
are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 2, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-20331 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
