Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55352-55357 [2011-22861]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55352-55357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-836]


Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests for an administrative review, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe 
and tube (LWR pipe and tube) from Mexico. The review covers imports of 
subject merchandise of two respondent companies during the period 
August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010. For these preliminary results, 
we have found that both respondents made sales of subject merchandise 
at less than normal value during the period of review. In addition, we 
have rescinded the review with respect to two additional companies.

DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland (Maquilacero), Brian 
Davis (Regiopytsa), or Edythe Artman, 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) 482-3362, (202) 482-7924, or 
(202) 482-3931, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2009, through July 31, 
2010.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise that is the subject of this order is certain welded 
carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular 
(including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 
4 mm.
    The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy 
steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. 
Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none 
of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight 
respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of 
silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 
1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 
lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 
percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent 
vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-
quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the 
scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to 
this order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 
7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Background

    On August 5, 2008, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on LWR pipe and tube from Mexico in the Federal Register. See 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, the People's 
Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders; 
Light-Walled Rectangular

[[Page 55353]]

Pipe and Tube from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45403 (August 5, 
2008) (Order). On August 2, 2010, the Department published its notice 
of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 
45094 (August 2, 2010), covering, inter alia, LWR pipe and tube from 
Mexico for the POR.
    In response, on August 31, 2010, four companies--Productos 
Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. (Prolamsa), Nacional de Acero S.A 
de C.V (Nacional), Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero), and 
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. (Regiopytsa)--requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of their own 
entries of subject merchandise for the POR. On September 29, 2010, the 
Department published a notice of initiation of the requested 
administrative reviews. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 75 FR 60076 (September 29, 2010). As discussed in the section 
immediately below, Prolamsa and Nacional later withdrew their requests 
for review.
    Both Maquilacero and Regiopytsa submitted responses to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire and responses to subsequent 
requests for additional information. The petitioner filed no comments 
on these responses.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a 
review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication 
of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Prolamsa and 
Nacional withdrew their requests for review on October 20, 2010, and 
November 4, 2010, respectively; thus, they both withdrew their requests 
within the 90-day time limit. No other party requested reviews of 
Prolamsa or Nacional. Therefore, we are accepting their requests for 
withdrawal and have rescinded the administrative reviews of Prolamsa 
and Nacional.

Extension of Preliminary Results

    On April 1, 2011, the Department published an extension of the time 
limits for the preliminary results of this review by 120 days. See 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico; Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 18155 (April 1, 2011). The extension notice established 
the deadline of August 31, 2011, for these preliminary results.

Affiliated Respondents

    Under section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), if one party owns, directly or indirectly, five percent or more 
of another party, such parties are considered to be affiliated for 
purposes of the antidumping law. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.403, the Department may require a respondent to report the 
downstream sales of its affiliated customer to the first unaffiliated 
customer if: (1) The respondent's sales to all affiliated customers 
account for five percent or more of the respondent's total sales of 
foreign-like product in the comparison market, and (2) those sales to 
the affiliated customer are determined to have not been made at arm's-
length.
    In the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation and the 
immediately preceding administrative review of this order, the 
Department determined that, pursuant to section 771(33)(E), Maquilacero 
had an affiliated customer whose downstream sales should be reported to 
the Department. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico, 73 FR 
35649 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5; Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
55559, 55561, (September 13, 2010). In this administrative review, 
Maquilacero reported sales to this same affiliated reseller and we 
found that these sales accounted for more than five percent of its 
home-market sales. However, because we found that these sales were made 
at arm's-length during the instant period of review, we did not request 
that Maquilacero submit its affiliate's downstream sales.
    Regiopytsa also reported sales to affiliated customers in the home 
market during the POR, but, because these sales constituted less than 
five percent of its total home-market sales during that period, we did 
not request that Regiopytsa submit downstream sales for its one 
affiliated reseller.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine if sales of subject merchandise were made in the 
United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price 
(EP) of U.S. sales to normal value, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP of U.S. sales 
within the POR to the monthly weighted-average normal value of foreign 
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section 
below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Maquilacero and Regiopytsa, covered by the 
description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section above, and sold in 
the home market during the POR, to be foreign like product for purposes 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to subject merchandise 
sold in the United States. We relied on the following six product 
characteristics to identify identical subject merchandise and foreign-
like product: (1) Steel input type; (2) whether the product was 
metallic-coated or not; (3) whether the product was painted or not; (4) 
product perimeter; (5) wall thickness; and (6) shape. Where there were 
no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
subject merchandise sold in the United States, we compared these U.S. 
sales to home-market sales of the most-similar, foreign like product on 
the basis of the reported product characteristics and instructions 
provided in the antidumping questionnaire.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and to the 
extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales made in 
the home market at the same level of trade as EP or the constructed 
export price. The normal-value level of trade is based on the starting 
prices of sales in the home market or, when normal value is based on 
constructed value, those of the sales from which we derived selling, 
general, and administrative expenses and profit. See also 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1)(iii). For EP, the level of trade is based on the starting 
price, which is usually the price from the exporter to the importer. 
See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, both Maquilacero and 
Regiopytsa reported only EP sales to the United States.
    To determine if the home-market sales are made at a different level 
of trade than EP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and 
the selling functions performed along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and

[[Page 55354]]

the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If home-market 
sales are at a different level of trade, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is 
based and home-market sales made at the level of trade of the export 
transaction, and the difference affects price comparability, then we 
make a level-of-trade adjustment to normal value under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

Maquilacero

    In its responses to section A of the antidumping questionnaire and 
supplemental responses, Maquilacero reported one level of trade with 
one channel of distribution for its EP sales. Based on our analysis of 
the selling functions performed by Maquilacero on its sales to the 
United States, we determined that the sales were made at one level of 
trade.
    For the home market, Maquilacero identified two channels of 
distribution in its section A response as follows: (1) Direct sales 
made by Maquilacero, and (2) indirect sales made by its affiliated 
reseller to the first unaffiliated customer. Maquilacero reported that 
the sales in both channels were made at one level of trade. Based on 
our analysis of all of Maquilacero's home-market selling functions, we 
found that the sales made in both channels of distribution were made at 
one level of trade, or the normal-value level of trade.
    We then compared the selling functions performed for the sales at 
the normal-value level of trade to those performed for the EP level of 
trade. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily determined that the EP 
and the starting price of Maquilacero's home-market sales represented 
different stages in the marketing process and were thus at different 
levels of trade. However, because Maquilacero only sold at one level of 
trade in the home market, there is no basis on which to determine if 
there was a pattern of consistent price differences between two levels 
of trade in that market. Furthermore, there is no other record evidence 
on which to base a level-of-trade adjustment. Therefore, even though 
the normal-value level of trade differed from the EP level of trade, we 
are unable to make a level-of-trade adjustment to normal value. For 
further discussion, see the ``Level of Trade'' section in the 
Memorandum to the File for ``Analysis of Data Submitted by Maquilacero 
S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 
Mexico,'' dated August 31, 2011 (Maquilacero Preliminary Analysis 
Memo).

Regiopytsa

    In its initial and supplemental responses to section A, Regiopytsa 
reported one channel of distribution for its home-market sales made to 
two classes of customers (i.e., distributors and end-users). For all 
sales made through the affiliated reseller in the home market, 
Regiopytsa reported that the merchandise was resold to unaffiliated 
customers. Regiopytsa reported a single level of trade in the home 
market in its section A response. Based on our analysis of all of 
Regiopytsa's home-market selling functions, we preliminary found that 
the selling functions for the reported channel of distribution 
constituted one level of trade in the home market, or the normal-value 
level of trade.
    In the U.S. market, Regiopytsa reported one level of trade for 
which there was one channel of distribution to two classes of customers 
(i.e., distributors and steel service centers). Based on our analysis 
of Regiopytsa's selling functions for its EP sales to the United 
States, we determined that there was one level of trade for its U.S. 
sales.
    Next, we compared the selling functions associated with the sales 
at the normal-value level of trade to those associated with the EP 
level of trade and, based on our analysis of record evidence, we 
preliminarily found that the degree to which Regiopytsa provided the 
selling functions for its customers in the home market was greater than 
the degree to which it provided selling functions in the U.S. market. 
Although both markets had many similar selling functions, Regiopytsa 
provided certain selling functions in the home market that it did not 
provide in the U.S. market (e.g., advertising, providing cash 
discounts, commissions to selling agents, and post-sale warehousing). 
But, as with Maquilacero, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade 
adjustment because there was only one level of trade in Regiopytsa's 
home market. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we matched the 
EP sales to home-market sales without making a level-of-trade 
adjustment to normal value. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For a 
more detailed explanation of our level-of-trade analysis, see the 
``Level of Trade'' section in the Memorandum to the File for ``Analysis 
of Data Submitted by Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. for 
the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,'' dated August 
31, 2011 (Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo).

Date of Sale

    The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the 
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the 
invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms 
of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
    For Maquilacero and Regiopytsa, we found that the invoice date best 
reflected the date on which material terms of sales were established 
with one exception. With respect to its home-market sales, Regiopytsa 
explained that certain sales involved ``special invoicing.'' Based on 
our analysis of these sales, we determined that the material terms of 
sale were in fact subject to change up until the time that the 
merchandise was released for shipment, which occurred after the invoice 
date. Thus, for these preliminary results, the Department found 
shipment date to be the most appropriate date of sale for the special-
invoicing sales. See the ``Date of Sale'' section of Regiopytsa 
Preliminary Analysis Memo for the full analysis of this issue.

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the 
date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise 
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 subsection (c).''
    For purposes of these preliminary results, we calculated EP for 
Maquilacero and Regiopytsa, in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation by the 
producer, outside of the United States to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. For each company, we calculated EP 
based on the packed price that was charged to the first unaffiliated 
U.S. customer. We made deductions for movement expenses, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 
including deductions for foreign inland freight (plant/warehouse to the 
border), U.S. inland freight

[[Page 55355]]

(warehouse to the unaffiliated customer), country of manufacture inland 
insurance, and brokerage and handling. We also made adjustments, where 
appropriate, for imputed credit, certain direct selling expenses 
(including commissions), and billing adjustments.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Home Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of LWR 
pipe and tube in the home market during the period of review to serve 
as a viable basis for calculating normal value, we compared Maquilacero 
and Regiopytsa's volume of home-market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of each company's respective U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. 
Because both Maquilacero and Regiopytsa's aggregate volume of home-
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of their aggregate volume of U.S. sales for subject merchandise, we 
determined that the home market was viable for comparison purposes for 
both companies, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market that were not made 
at arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we 
consider them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See section 
773(f)(2) of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.102(b). Consistent with 19 
CFR 351.403(c) and (d) and agency practice, ``the Department may 
calculate normal value based on sales to affiliates if satisfied that 
the transactions were made at arm's-length.'' See China Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1365 (CIT 2003). To test whether 
the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, 
on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers, net of all direct selling expenses, billing 
adjustments, discounts, rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where 
prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 
to 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to 
the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 
69194 (November 15, 2002). Based on this analysis, Maquilacero's sales 
through its affiliated reseller were made at arm's length but those 
made by Regiopytsa to its affiliated customers (including its 
affiliated reseller) were not. Therefore, in our margin calculations, 
we included Maquilacero's sales to its affiliate but excluded 
Regiopytsa's sales to its affiliated customers.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the LTFV investigation of this proceeding, the Department 
disregarded sales made by Maquilacero that were found to be below its 
cost of production (COP). See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube 
From Mexico, 73 FR 5515, 5521 (January 30, 2008), unchanged in the 
final results, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 73 FR 35649 
(June 24, 2008). Therefore, as below-cost sales made by Maquilacero 
were disregarded in the most recently completed segment of the 
proceeding, there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
this respondent had made sales of the foreign like product in the home 
market at prices below the COP, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act. Consequently, on October 26, 2010, we requested that 
Maquilacero respond to section D of the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire.
    Based on the review of the COP information provided by Maquilacero 
in its response, the company did not appear to experience significant 
changes in its cost of manufacturing (COM) during the POR. Therefore, 
we followed our normal methodology of calculating a POR, weighted 
average cost for each product. We relied on the COP information 
provided by Maquilacero except we made an upward adjustment to 
Maquilacero's labor costs to reflect the purchase of labor services 
from an affiliate during the POR. Because the record did not provide 
market prices for these services, we were unable to compare the 
transfer price of the services to a market price under section 
773(f)(2) of the Act. Thus, we based our adjustment to labor costs on 
an analysis of the transfer price to the COP of the affiliate. 
Furthermore, because we are making the adjustment to the labor portion 
of COM, we excluded the affiliate's operating loss from Maquilacero's 
reported general and administrative expenses. For further details 
regarding this adjustment for Maquilacero, see the Memorandum to Neal 
M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting from Ji Young Oh, Senior 
Accountant, regarding the ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Maquilacero S.A. 
de C.V.,'' dated August 31, 2011.
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted 
average COP figures to the home-market sales of the foreign like 
product in order to determine if these sales were made at prices below 
the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, 
packing expenses, warranty expenses, or indirect selling expenses. In 
determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at prices below 
their COP, we examined if such sales were made within an extended 
period of time, in substantial quantities, and at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of the 
home-market sales were made at prices below the COP and that these 
below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time and in 
substantial quantities. In addition, the sales were made at prices that 
did not permit the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of 
time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
disregarded these below-cost sales, and used only the remaining sales 
of the same product as the basis for determining normal value.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated normal value based on prices to unaffiliated 
customers and those to affiliated customers that passed the arm's-
length test.\1\ In the case of Maquilacero, normal value was also based 
on home-market sales that passed the cost test. In our calculation of 
normal value, we accounted for billing adjustments, discounts, and 
rebates, where appropriate. We also made deductions, where applicable, 
for inland freight, insurance, handling, and warehousing, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. In particular, we made COS adjustments 
for home-market direct selling expenses, such as imputed credit 
expenses and warranty expenses, and certain U.S. direct selling 
expenses, including commissions and warranty

[[Page 55356]]

expenses. For Maquilacero, we calculated home-market and U.S. warranty 
expenses based on a three-year company history of such expenses. For 
Regiopytsa, the company was unable to provide a three-year history of 
warranty expenses, so we based the calculation of the expenses on those 
incurred by Regiopytsa during the POR. Finally, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We excluded home market sales of secondary merchandise, for 
which neither Maquilacero nor Regiopytsa could provide complete 
product characteristic information and which both companies reported 
to be heavily discounted lot sales (i.e., sales of assorted 
merchandise), from our margin calculation analysis. For a more 
detailed discussion of these sales, see Maquilacero Preliminary 
Analysis Memo at 5-6 and Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more detailed information on the calculation of normal value, 
see Maquilacero Preliminary Analysis Memo at 10 and Regiopytsa 
Preliminary Analysis Memo at 7.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
France, 68 FR 47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), unchanged in Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 
2003). However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish 
exchange rates for the Mexican peso. Therefore, pursuant to section 
773A(a) of the Act, we made currency conversions from Mexican pesos to 
U.S. dollars based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow 
Jones and Reuters Retrieval Service. Because Factiva only publishes 
exchange rates for Monday through Friday, we used the rate of exchange 
on the most recent Friday for conversion of dates involving a Saturday 
or Sunday. See Import Administration Web site at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2009, 
through July 31, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                       margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.................................            0.80
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V............            4.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comments

    The Department will disclose the calculations we used in our 
analysis to parties to this review within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 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 37 days after the date of publication, or the 
first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case 
briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 
five days after the time limit for submitting the case briefs. See 19 
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 
(2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 
Further, parties submitting case briefs and/or rebuttal briefs are 
requested to provide the Department with an additional copy of the 
public version of any such argument on diskette.
    Parties are reminded that any case or rebuttal briefs must be filed 
electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS), 
in compliance with the procedures set forth in Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).
    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such argument or at a hearing, within 120 days of the 
date of publication of this notice.

Duty Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 
importer- or customer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the 
merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales made during the period of 
review to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those 
duties. Where the duty assessment rates are above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer in accordance with the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2).
    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). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR that were produced by the companies included in these preliminary 
results of review and for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such 
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the 
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) 
involved in the transaction.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP on or after 41 days following the 
publication of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective, upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review, for all 
shipments of LWR pipe and tube from Mexico entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash-deposit rates for the companies covered by this review 
(i.e., Maquilacero and Regiopytsa) will be the rates established in the 
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 
percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in 
which case 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, the 
prior review, or the 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 the 
all-others rate of 3.76 percent, the all-others rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. See Order at 73 FR 45405. These 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

[[Page 55357]]

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 are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

     Dated: August 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-22861 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P