Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 19211-19219 [2012-7748]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19211-19219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-552-810]


Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters 
of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (``circular welded pipe'') 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''). For information 
on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Austin Redington or Christopher 
Siepmann, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1664 or (202) 482-7958, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioners

    The petitioners in this investigation are Wheatland Tube, Allied 
Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and United States Steel Corporation 
(collectively, ``Petitioners'').

Case History

    The following events have occurred since the publication of the 
Department of Commerce's (``Department'') notice of initiation in the 
Federal Register. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From 
India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigations, 76 FR 72173 (November 22, 2011) (``Initiation 
Notice''), and the accompanying Initiation Checklist.
    On December 16, 2011, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') published its affirmative preliminary determination that 
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States 
is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of 
circular welded pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and 
Vietnam. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 
Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 76 FR 78313 (December 16, 
2011).
    The Department released U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') entry data for U.S. imports of circular welded pipe from 
Vietnam between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, to be used as 
the basis for respondent selection. See Memorandum from Joshua Morris, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst to the File, ``Release of 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') Data,'' dated November 22, 
2011. The CBP entry data covered products included in this 
investigation which entered under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') numbers likely to include subject 
merchandise: 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.
    On December 15, 2011, the Department issued its respondent 
selection analysis. Given available resources, the Department 
determined it could examine no more than two producers/exporters and 
selected SeAH Steel VINA Corp. (``SeAH VINA'') and Vietnam Haiphong 
Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (``Haiphong Hongyuan''). See 
Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, Office Director, to Christian Marsh, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded 
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated December 15, 2011. These 
companies were the two largest producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise, based on aggregate volume, to the United States.
    On December 19, 2011, the Department postponed the deadline for the 
preliminary determination in this investigation until March 26, 2012. 
See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, the Sultanate 
of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary

[[Page 19212]]

Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 78615 
(December 19, 2011). In conjunction with this postponement, the 
Department also postponed the deadline for the submission of new 
subsidy allegations until February 15, 2012. See Memorandum to the File 
from Joshua S. Morris, ``New Subsidy Allegation Deadline: Circular 
Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the 
United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated 
December 15, 2011.
    On January 3, 2012, SeAH VINA requested that the Department 
terminate the countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation of circular 
welded pipe from Vietnam, stating that in a recent decision the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') found that the 
Department does not have the authority to apply the CVD law to 
countries the Department considers non-market economies. On January 12, 
2012, the Government of Vietnam (``GOV'') also requested that the 
Department terminate the CVD investigation pursuant to the CAFC's 
ruling.
    On December 20, 2011, the Department issued CVD questionnaires to 
the GOV, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong Hongyuan. We received initial 
questionnaire responses (``IQR'') from the GOV, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong 
Hongyuan on February 16, 2012. Supplemental questionnaires were sent to 
the GOV, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong Hongyuan on February 27, 2012. We 
received a supplemental questionnaire response (``SQR'') from Haiphong 
Hongyuan to the supplemental questionnaire on March 9, 2012, and we 
received SQRs from the GOV and SeAH VINA to the supplemental 
questionnaire on March 12, 2012.
    One of the petitioning parties, Wheatland Tube, requested two 
extensions of the deadline for filing new subsidy allegations. As a 
result, this deadline was extended from February 15 to February 24, and 
then to February 28, 2012. See Memorandum to the File from Susan 
Kuhbach, ``New Subsidy Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded Carbon-
Quality Steel Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 
Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' dated February 6, 
2012, and Letter to Interested Parties, dated February 24, 2012. No new 
subsidy allegations were received in this investigation.
    We received deficiency comments on the GOV's, SeAH VINA's, and 
Haiphong Hongyuan's responses from Wheatland Tube on February 22, 2012 
(``Deficiency Comments''). We received pre-preliminary comments from 
Wheatland Tube on March 14, 2012. On March 19, 2012, we received pre-
preliminary comments from SeAH. We received additional pre-preliminary 
comments from Wheatland Tube on March 20, 2012.
    The GOV failed to respond to some of the Department's February 27, 
2012 questions in its March 12, 2012 supplemental questionnaire 
response. Rather than requesting an extension of the deadline to submit 
responsive information, the GOV informed the Department that it did not 
have time to gather requested information regarding certain banks in 
time for the questionnaire's deadline. The GOV thereafter submitted its 
responses to these questions on March 16, 2012. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.302(d)(i), we are rejecting this untimely filed information and 
will notify the GOV as specified by 19 CFR 351.302(2).

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period 
of investigation (``POI''), is January 1, 2010, through December 31, 
2010.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997), and Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72173. On December 5, 2011, 
SeAH VINA filed comments arguing that the treatment of double and 
triple stenciled pipe in the scope of these investigations differs from 
previous treatment of these products under other orders on circular 
welded pipe. Specifically, SeAH VINA claims that the Brazilian, Korean, 
and Mexican orders on these products exclude ``Standard pipe that is 
dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of 
a kind used for oil and gas pipelines * * *'' See, e.g., Certain 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of 
Korea, and Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Reviews 
of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 66899, 66900 (Oct. 28, 2011). 
According to SeAH VINA: (i) if the term ``class or kind of 
merchandise'' has meaning, it cannot have a different meaning when 
applied to the same products in two different cases; and (ii) the 
distinction between standard and line pipe reflected in the Brazil, 
Korean and Mexican orders derives from customs classifications 
administered by CBP and, thus, is more administrable.
    On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 
Wheatland Tube (collectively, ``certain Petitioners'') responded to 
SeAH VINA's comments stating that the scope as it appeared in the 
Initiation Notice reflected Petitioners' intended coverage. Certain 
Petitioners contend that pipe that is multi-stenciled to both line pipe 
and standard pipe specifications and meets the physical characteristics 
listed in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 
2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted 
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 
coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in standard pipe applications. 
In recent years, certain Petitioners state, the Department has rejected 
end-use scope classifications, preferring instead to rely on physical 
characteristics to define coverage, and the scope of these 
investigations has been written accordingly. Therefore, certain 
Petitioners ask the Department to reject SeAH VINA's proposed scope 
modification.
    We agree with certain Petitioners that the Department seeks to 
define the scopes of its proceedings based on the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe From 
the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Moreover, we 
disagree with SeAH VINA's contention that once a ``class or kind of 
merchandise'' has been established that the same scope description must 
apply across all proceedings involving the product. For example, as the 
Department has gained experience in administering antidumping duty 
(``AD'') and CVD orders, it has shifted away from end use 
classifications to scopes defined by the physical characteristics. Id. 
Thus, proceedings initiated on a given product many years ago may have 
end use classifications while more recent proceedings on the product 
would not. Compare Countervailing Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from Canada, 51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) (describing subject 
merchandise as being ``intended for use in drilling for oil and gas'') 
with Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of 
China:

[[Page 19213]]

Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010) (describing 
the subject merchandise in terms of physical characteristics without 
regard to use or intended use). Finally, certain Petitioners have 
indicated the domestic industry's intent to include multi-stenciled 
products that otherwise meet the physical characteristics set out in 
the scope. Therefore, the Department is not adopting SeAH VINA's 
proposed modification of the scope.

Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and 
tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (``O.D.'') 
not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, 
surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain 
end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 
industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and 
Materials International (``ASTM''), proprietary, or other) generally 
known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and 
structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as 
mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term ``carbon quality'' includes 
products in which: (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the 
other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, 
by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the 
quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, 
and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe 
is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and 
structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications 
rather than to industry specifications. Fence tubing is included in the 
scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the 
exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. 
Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and 
may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to 
proprietary specifications. These products are generally made to 
standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to 
a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, 
such as American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is 
also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the 
physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the 
following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted 
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 
coupled end finish.
    The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) Pipe suitable 
for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces 
and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished 
electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding \1\; (d) tube and pipe 
hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API 
specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications; and 
(g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. However, products 
certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications are not excluded as 
mechanical tubing if they otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., 
outside diameter and wall thickness) of standard, structural, fence and 
sprinkler pipe. Also, products made to the following outside diameter 
and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry 
as typical for fence tubing, would not be excluded from the scope based 
solely on their being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing 
specifications:

    \1\ Finished scaffolding is defined as component parts of a 
final, finished scaffolding that enters the United States 
unassembled as a ``kit.'' A ``kit'' is understood to mean a packaged 
combination of component parts that contain, at the time of 
importation, all the necessary component parts to fully assemble a 
final, finished scaffolding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall thickness (gage 20)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall thickness (gage 11)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall thickness (gage 10)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall thickness (gage 7)

    The pipe subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') statistical 
reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 
7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, 
and 7306.50.5070. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under the investigation is dispositive.

Alignment of Final Determination

    On November 22, 2011, the Department initiated an AD investigation 
concurrent with this CVD investigation of circular welded pipe

[[Page 19214]]

from Vietnam. See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 
FR 72164 (November 22, 2011). The scope of the merchandise being 
covered is the same for both the AD and CVD investigations. On March 
23, 2012, Petitioners submitted a letter, in accordance with section 
705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), 
requesting alignment of the final CVD determination with the final 
determination in the companion AD investigation. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), 
the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the 
final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued on 
August 6, 2012.

Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From Vietnam

    On April 1, 2010, the Department published Bags from Vietnam Final 
Determination in which we found the CVD law applicable to Vietnam. See 
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 
16428 (April 1, 2010) (``Bags from Vietnam Final Determination''), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Furthermore, on March 13, 
2012, HR 4105 was enacted which makes clear that the Department has the 
authority to apply the CVD law to non-market economies such as Vietnam. 
The effective date provision of the enacted legislation makes clear 
that this provision applies to this proceeding. See HR 4105, 112th 
Cong. 1(b) (2012) (enacted).
    Additionally, for reasons stated in Bags from Vietnam Final 
Determination, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 3, we are using the date of January 11, 2007, the date on which 
Vietnam became a member of the WTO, as the date from which the 
Department will identify and measures subsidies in Vietnam for purposes 
of CVD investigations.

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    The average useful life (``AUL'') period in this proceeding, as 
described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), is 15 years according to the U.S. 
Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range 
System. See U.S. Internal Revenue Service Publication 946 (2008), How 
to Depreciate Property, at Table B-2: Table of Class Lives and Recovery 
Periods. No party in this proceeding has disputed this allocation 
period.

Attribution of Subsidies

    The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that 
the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products 
produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(ii) through (v) directs that the Department will 
attribute subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined 
sales of those companies if (1) cross-ownership exists between the 
companies, and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the subject 
merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject company, 
produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production of the 
downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company.
    According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists 
between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or 
direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially 
the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that 
this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting 
interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two 
(or more) corporations. The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') has 
upheld the Department's authority to attribute subsidies based on 
whether a company could use or direct the subsidy benefits of another 
company in essentially the same way it could use its own subsidy 
benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, SA v. United States, 166 F. 
Supp. 2d 593, 600-604 (CIT 2001).

SeAH VINA

    SeAH VINA reported that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of SeAH 
Steel Corp. (``SeAH Steel''), a manufacturer of pipe and other steel 
products based in South Korea. SeAH VINA also reported that it does not 
have any subsidiaries, nor does it hold ownership claim in any other 
company.
    SeAH VINA's parent company, SeAH Steel, owns 50 percent of the 
shares of Vietnam Steel Pipe Corp. (``Vinapipe''), a Vietnamese 
producer of circular welded pipe. According to SeAH VINA, the remaining 
50% of Vinapipe is owned by Vietnam Steel Corporation, a corporation 
wholly-owned by the GOV. In its Deficiency Comments on SeAH VINA's 
questionnaire response, Wheatland Tube argued that cross-ownership 
exists between SeAH VINA and Vinapipe and, thus, SeAH VINA should have 
provided a questionnaire response on behalf of Vinapipe. In our 
supplemental questionnaire to SeAH VINA, we asked several questions in 
order to determine whether its relationship with Vinapipe met the 
cross-ownership standard under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). SeAH VINA 
provided the investment certificates and charter documents for Vinapipe 
as well as the joint venture agreement between SeAH Steel and Vietnam 
Steel Corporation. See SeAH VINA's SQR at Appendix S-1.
    Based upon our examination of these documents, as well as other 
information on the record, we do not find evidence that Vinapipe is 
controlled by either SeAH Steel or SeAH VINA under 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(vi). Specifically, the voting structure of Vinapipe 
requires at least a 65% vote on any management or operational issues, 
which would require support from both SeAH Steel and Vietnam Steel 
Corporation. In addition, each party selects an equal number of members 
of the Board of Directors (referred to as the Members' Council) and the 
nomination of the Chairman and General Director rotates between SeAH 
Steel and Vietnam Steel Corporation (i.e., if it is one party's turn to 
select the Chairman, then the other Party selects the General 
Director). Furthermore, SeAH VINA reported that there were no 
transactions, business agreements, or shared board members between it 
and Vinapipe. See SeAH VINA's SQR at 3-6.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Vinapipe does not meet 
the cross-ownership standard of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) because the 
evidence does not support a finding that SeAH Steel can use or direct 
the individual assets of Vinapipe in essentially the same ways it can 
use its own assets. Accordingly, we have not requested a questionnaire 
response from Vinapipe. We are attributing subsidy benefits received by 
SeAH VINA solely to the sales of SeAH VINA.
    Wheatland Tube has also stated that SeAH VINA is affiliated with 
the Korean steel company Pohang Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (``POSCO''), and 
that POSCO provides SeAH VINA with raw material inputs; thus, Wheatland 
Tube states that a questionnaire response is due from POSCO. Wheatland 
Tube states that the affiliation between SeAH VINA and POSCO is based 
upon shares held by POSCO in SeAH VINA's Korean parent company, SeAH 
Steel.
    While the Department has found SeAH Steel and POSCO to be 
affiliated in certain AD investigations of imports

[[Page 19215]]

from Korea, there is nothing on the record, nor has Wheatland Tube 
provided any information, to demonstrate cross-ownership as defined 
under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) between SeAH VINA and POSCO. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that cross-ownership does not 
exist between SeAH VINA and POSCO; thus, there is no need to solicit a 
questionnaire response from POSCO. Furthermore, Wheatland Tube has 
provided no information that POSCO is providing SeAH VINA with an input 
that is produced in Vietnam. According to the information submitted by 
Wheatland Tube, POSCO's steel facility in Vietnam is currently being 
constructed and will not be operational until 2013.

Haiphong Hongyuan

    Haiphong Hongyuan informed us that it is wholly owned by MAT 
Holdings, Inc., which is located in the United States. See Haiphong 
Hongyuan's IQR, at 2. According to Haiphong Hongyuan, it has no 
affiliates in Vietnam, and it did not export any subject merchandise to 
the United States through a trading company. Therefore, we are 
attributing subsidy benefits received by Haiphong Hongyuan solely to 
Haiphong Hongyuan's sales.

Analysis of Programs

    Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our 
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:

Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

Import Duty Exemptions for Imported Raw Materials for Exported Goods

    Pursuant to Article 3.3 of the Law on Import and Export Tax, goods 
imported from foreign countries into non-tariff zones for use only in 
non-tariff zones are not liable for import duties. In accordance with 
Decree 29/2008/ND-CP issuing regulations on industrial zones, export 
processing zones and economic zones, these same rules extend to export 
processing zones and export processing enterprises.
    Haiphong Hongyuan reported that it qualified for duty exemptions on 
its imported raw materials used to produce exported goods based on its 
designation as a qualified export processing enterprise. The GOV 
provided Haiphong Hongyuan's investment certificate, which confirmed 
its designation as an export processing enterprise.
    SeAH VINA reported that it paid the applicable import tariffs on 
its raw material imports.
    Import duty exemptions on inputs for exported products constitute 
countervailable export subsidies to the extent that the exemption 
extends to inputs that are not consumed in the production of the 
exported product, making normal allowances for waste. See 19 CFR 
351.519(a)(1)(ii). However, the government in question must have in 
place and apply a system to confirm which inputs are consumed in the 
production of the exported products, and in what amounts. This system 
must be reasonable, effective for the purposes intended, and based on 
generally accepted commercial practices in the country of export. If 
such a system does not exist, or if it is not applied effectively, and 
the government in question does not carry out an examination of actual 
inputs involved to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production 
of the exported product, the entire amount of any exemption, deferral, 
remission or drawback is countervailable. See 19 CFR 351.519(4)(i)-
(ii). In Bags From Vietnam Final Determination, the Department 
determined that the GOV does not have such a system and companies are, 
in fact, allowed to choose their own yield rates within a range 
established by the GOV. Thus, we found the duty exemptions on raw 
materials for exports to be fully countervailable. See Bags from 
Vietnam Final Determination, and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 10.
    We preliminarily determine that Haiphong Hongyuan received a 
countervailable subsidy, as described by section 771(5)(A) of the Act, 
under the Import Duty Exemptions for Imported Raw Materials for 
Exported Goods program. We preliminarily determine this program to be 
specific under section 771(5A)(A) and (B) of the Act because benefits 
under this program are contingent upon export performance. In addition, 
we preliminarily determine a financial contribution exists pursuant to 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, as the exempted duties represent 
revenue forgone by the GOV.
    Normally, we treat exemptions from indirect taxes and import 
charges on raw materials as recurring benefits, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.524(c)(1), and allocate the benefits to the year in which they were 
received. Thus, to calculate the subsidy rate for Haiphong Hongyuan, we 
first determined the total value of duties exempted during the POI by 
multiplying the value of each raw material imported during the POI by 
the applicable tariff rate. We then divided this by the value of 
Haiphong Hongyuan's export sales.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Haiphong Hongyuan 
received a countervailable subsidy of 8.04 percent ad valorem. See 
Memorandum from Christopher Siepmann, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst to Yasmin Nair, Program Manager, ``Preliminary Calculation 
Memorandum for Haiphong Hongyuan,'' dated March 26, 2012 (``Haiphong 
Hongyuan Prelim Calc Memo'').

B. Import Duty Exemptions for Imported Fixed Assets, Spare Parts, and 
Accessories for Export Processing Enterprises or Export Processing 
Zones \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department initiated on this program under the title 
``Exemption of Import Duties on Import Duties on Imports of Fixed 
Assets, Spare Parts and Accessories for Industrial Zones.'' Because 
we now have a better understanding of why import duty exemptions may 
be granted, we have analyzed benefits received by Haiphong Hongyuan 
and SeAH VINA under two different programs, even though both 
companies are located in industrial zones. This is because the 
respondents receive benefits under separate provisions. Haiphong 
Hongyuan's benefits have been analyzed as ``Import Duty Exemptions 
for Imports of Fixed Assets, Spare Parts and Accessories for Export 
Processing Enterprises or Export Processing Zones.'' SeAH VINA is 
addressed under ``Import Duty Exemptions for Imports of Fixed 
Assets, Spare Parts and Accessories for Encouraged Projects,'' which 
replaces both ``Duty Exemptions on Goods for the Creation of Fixed 
Assets for Encouraged Projects'' and ``Exemption of Import Duties on 
Imports of Fixed Assets, Spare Parts and Accessories for Industrial 
Zones.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article 16.6 of the Law on Import Tax and Export Tax, dated June 
14, 2005, provides duty exemptions on imported fixed assets, spare 
parts, and accessories for projects entitled to investment incentives. 
Pursuant to Decree No. 108/2006/ND-CP, Detailing and Guiding the 
Implementation of a Number of Articles of the Investment Law, projects 
in certain geographical areas, including industrial development zones, 
are entitled to receive these investment incentives.
    The GOV reported that Haiphong Hongyuan's location in the Do Son 
Hai Phong Industrial Zone made it eligible to receive duty exemptions 
on fixed assets. However, Haiphong Hongyuan reported that it claimed 
these import duty exemptions pursuant to its designation as a qualified 
export processing enterprise. As discussed above for raw material 
imports, Article 3.3 of the Law on Import and Export Tax, permits 
imports into non-tariff zones to be exempt from duties so long as they 
are only in non-tariff zones. For this preliminary determination, we 
are relying on Haiphong Hongyuan's explanation of the basis for its 
eligibility.
    We preliminarily determine that, for Haiphong Hongyuan, this 
program is specific and constitutes an export subsidy pursuant to 
sections 771(5A)(A)

[[Page 19216]]

and (B) of the Act, because benefits under this program are contingent 
upon export performance. In addition, we preliminarily determine a 
financial contribution exists pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the 
Act because the exempted duties represent revenue forgone by the GOV. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the benefits provided to 
Haiphong Hongyuan under this program constitute a countervailable 
subsidy within the meaning of section 771(5)(A) of the Act.
    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), we generally treat exemptions 
from indirect taxes and import charges, such as the tariff exemptions 
for spare parts and accessories, as conferring recurring benefits. 
Thus, we allocate the benefits to the year in which they were received. 
However, when an indirect tax or import charge exemption is provided 
for, or tied to, the capital structure or capital assets of a firm, the 
Department may treat it as a non-recurring benefit and allocate the 
benefit to the firm over the AUL. See 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(iii) and 19 
CFR 351.524(d)(2).
    Haiphong Hongyuan provided a list of tariff exemptions that it 
received for imported fixed assets, spare parts, and accessories since 
its establishment in 2008. See Haiphong Hongyuan's IQR at Exhibit 15. 
Haiphong Hongyuan's list of tariff exemptions did not identify which 
items were fixed assets and which were spare parts and accessories. 
Therefore, the Department relied upon the items' descriptions to 
classify each item as either a fixed asset or spare part/accessory. 
Consistent with Bags from Vietnam Final Determination, we are treating 
duty exemptions on fixed assets as non-recurring subsidies and duty 
exemptions on spare parts and accessories as recurring subsidies.
    For years prior to the POI, the duty exemptions on fixed assets 
were less than 0.5 percent of Haiphong Hongyuan's exports in those 
years. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), the benefits 
were expensed in the year of receipt and did not give rise to a 
countervailable subsidy in the POI. Regarding its imports during the 
POI, our review shows that although Haiphong Hongyuan imported spare 
parts and accessories, it paid the applicable duty rate on those items. 
We applied the ``expense test'' described above to Haiphong Hongyuan's 
import exemptions for fixed assets and found that total exemptions in 
the POI were also less than 0.5 percent and, hence, expensed in the 
POI.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Haiphong Hongyuan 
received a countervailable subsidy of 0.02 percent ad valorem. See 
Haiphong Hongyuan Prelim Calc Memo.

C. Import Duty Exemptions for Imported Fixed Assets, Spare Parts, and 
Accessories for Encouraged Projects

    As explained above, Article 16.6 of the Law on Import Tax and 
Export Tax, dated June 14, 2005, provides duty exemptions on imported 
fixed assets, spare parts, and accessories for projects entitled to 
investment incentives. Pursuant to Decree No. 108/2006/ND-CP, Detailing 
and Guiding the Implementation of a Number of Articles of the 
Investment Law, projects in certain geographical areas, including 
industrial development zones, are ``encouraged'' and, hence, able to 
receive these incentives.
    According to the GOV, SeAH VINA received duty exemptions because it 
is located in the Bien Hoa Industrial Zone.
    This program was found countervailable in Bags from Vietnam Final 
Determination because the companies investigated in that case were 
located in industrial zones. The GOV reports that the eligibility 
criteria for this program changed on October 1, 2010, pursuant to 
Decree 87/2010/ND-CP Detailing the implementation of the Law on Import 
and Export Tax 2005. However, Article 16.2 of this decree appears to 
grandfather benefits to companies that enjoyed these tax exemptions 
prior to October 1, 2010. The Department intends to seek additional 
information following this preliminary determination to confirm 
benefits to SeAH VINA extended beyond October 1, 2010, for this 
program.
    SeAH VINA stated that, although eligible for these exemptions due 
to its location in an industrial development zone, it did not use this 
program. Rather, SeAH VINA claims it did not pay import duties because 
the Vietnamese customs law permits duty-free importation of components 
used to construct certain machinery. In this case, this ``certain 
machinery'' was a pipe forming mill and the applicable duty rate was 
zero.
    In response to the Department's request, SeAH VINA provided the 
customs documents associated with these imports. These documents 
indicate that SeAH VINA received these duty exemptions pursuant to the 
entitlements established by Decree No 108/2006/ND-CP, Detailing and 
Guiding the Implementation of a Number of Articles of the Investment 
Law. Relying on these import documents and the GOV's statements 
concerning SeAH VINA's eligibility for this program, we preliminarily 
determine that SeAH VINA used the program being investigated and that 
the applicable duties in the absence of the program were not zero.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the duty exemptions 
received by SeAH VINA on its imports of fixed assets, spare parts, and 
accessories are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, 
because they are limited to companies located in particular geographic 
areas. In addition, we preliminarily determine a financial contribution 
exists pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, as the exempted 
duties represent revenue forgone by the GOV.
    We are relying on the list of yearly imported fixed assets, spare 
parts, and accessories reported by SeAH VINA. Because SeAH VINA 
reported that all imports under this program were used to create fixed 
assets, we are treating all of SeAH VINA's reported imports as either 
spare parts or accessories. Consistent with Bags from Vietnam Final 
Determination, we are treating import duty exemptions on spare parts 
and accessories as recurring subsidies.
    Because we do not have complete information on the tariff rates 
applicable to SeAH VINA's imports, we have relied upon Haiphong 
Hongyuan's reported import exemptions to calculate an average tariff 
rate to apply to SeAH VINA's reported imports. Although we are 
investigating Haiphong Hongyuan's tariff exemptions as specific to 
export processing enterprises or export processing zones, the tariff 
rates reported by Haiphong Hongyuan for its imports would also have 
been applicable to SeAH VINA in the absence of this subsidy program. 
For further description of this tariff rate calculation, see Memorandum 
from Austin Redington, International Trade Analyst, to Yasmin Nair, 
Program Manager, ``Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for SeAH VINA,'' 
dated March 26, 2012 (``SeAH VINA Prelim Calc Memo''). We will seek 
additional information on the applicable tariff rates for SeAH VINA's 
imports for our final determination.
    To calculate SeAH VINA's benefit under this program, we first 
determined the total value of duties exempted during the POI by 
multiplying the value of each item imported under this program by the 
facts available tariff rate described above. We then divided the total 
by SeAH VINA's total sales for 2010.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that SeAH VINA received a 
countervailable subsidy of 0.04 percent ad valorem under this program. 
See SeAH VINA Prelim Calc Memo.

[[Page 19217]]

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Have Been Not Used by 
Respondents or To Not Provide Benefits During the POI

A. Preferential Lending to the Steel Industry

    Petitioners claim that according to GOV policy, projects in 
specified industries are eligible for preferential loans or debt 
restructuring. They argue that this is evidenced by the GOV's 
designation of steel as a spearhead industry. Further, Petitioners 
claim that the GOV exerts control over nominally commercial banks to 
provide debt restructuring, loan forgiveness, and preferential lending 
to the Vietnamese steel industry, and that these industrial policies 
have resulted in preferential loans to manufacturers of circular welded 
pipe products.
    In response to our questionnaire, the GOV provided numerous 
planning documents pertaining to the steel industry. The GOV submitted 
Resolution 56/2006/QH11 on June, 29, 2006 on five-year social-economic 
development plan for the period of 2006-2010 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 
7); the Resolution 62/2006/NQ-HDND by Dong Nai People's Council on the 
targets, tasks and solution for socio-development and security of the 
city 2006-2010 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 32); Resolution 08/2006/NQ-HDND 
by Hai Phong People's Council on the city plan for socio-economic 
development plan for 2006-2010 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 33); Decision 
145/2007/QD-TTg, Approving the master plan on development of Vietnam 
Steel period 2007-2015 with regard to the year 2025, dated September 4, 
2007 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 12); Decision 134/2001/QD-TTg, Approving 
the overall planning for development of steel industry until the year 
2010, dated September 10, 2001 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 13); and 
Decision No. 55/2007/QD-TTg, Approving the List of Priority Industries 
and Spearhead Industries for the 2007-2010 Period with a Vision to 
2020, and a Number of Incentive Policies for These Industries (see GOV 
IQR at Exhibit 6).
    Based on our review of these plans, circular welded pipe is not 
listed among the steel industry products designated for financial 
support, though other specific steel industry products are listed. The 
GOV confirmed that circular welded pipe is not the subject of any of 
the projects identified in the planning documents. Further, the GOV 
clarified that the designation of a spearhead or priority industry is 
provided under Decision 55/2007/QD-TTg, and only steel draft and 
special-use steel are designated as priority industries during 2007-
2010. The GOV defined special-use steel as high-quality steel for use 
by the defense industry, electrical engine manufacturing and ship 
building. It did not define ``steel draft,'' but claims that circular 
welded pipe is neither considered steel draft nor special-use steel, 
and circular welded pipe manufacturing is not designated as a priority 
industry.
    The Department also asked the GOV to explain whether circular 
welded pipe is covered by the development objectives of Resolution 08/
2006/NQ-HDND. The GOV responded by stating that Resolution 08/2005/NQ-
HDND sets forth the goals for development of Haiphong City from 2006-
2010 and lists sectors in which Hai Phong City hopes to achieve further 
development. See GOV IQR at 4. The GOV also stated that a sector listed 
in the plan does not entitle that sector to any form of investment 
preference. Rather, the ability to provide investment preferences rests 
largely with the central government; the provincial government can only 
assist industrial sectors in terms of administrative policies, which 
must be explicitly provided for in decisions issued by the people's 
committee. Id. The GOV added that circular welded pipe production is 
not an encouraged industry in Haiphong City because circular welded 
pipe is a low value-added product, and current production capacity 
exceeds market demand. Id.
    Based on this information, we preliminarily determine that circular 
welded pipe was not part of a state targeted, or encouraged, industry 
or project; and that the various plans that relate to the promotion of 
the Vietnamese steel industry do not cover the production of circular 
welded pipe. Furthermore, the respondent producers of circular welded 
pipe are not hot-rolled steel manufacturers, a type of steel production 
that is referenced in the GOV steel industry plans. We intend to 
confirm the accuracy of the information provided by the GOV for this 
program at verification.

 B. Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (``LTAR'') in 
Encouraged Industries or Industrial Zones

    Petitioners claim that the GOV provides a land-rent reduction or 
exemption program for encouraged industries or enterprises in 
industrial zones.
    As explained above, Haiphong Hongyuan is located in Do Son Hai 
Phong Industry Zone. Haiphong Hongyuan rents its land directly from the 
industrial development corporation (``IDC'') Hai Phong Do Son 
Industrial Zone Joint Venture Company, which is a joint-venture between 
the Hai Phong Construction and Development Infrastructure Group and 
Asia Glorious Development Ltd. of Hong Kong, a 100 percent foreign 
enterprise.
    According to Article 35.8 of Decree 29/2008/ND-CP, the provincial 
People's Committee is responsible for ``carrying out the procedures for 
leasing or allocating land in industrial zones {and{time}  economic 
zones in accordance with the law on land and relevant laws.'' Article 
36.1 of the same law states that ``{t{time} he Management Committee is 
an agency under the provincial People's Committee which directly 
performs the function of State administration with respect to 
industrial zones and economic zones within the province or city under 
central authority in accordance with this Decree and relevant laws.'' 
See GOV IQR at Exhibit 41. However, the GOV informed us that the IDC, 
not the management committee, is responsible for developing the land 
and contracting with enterprises to locate in the zone. According to 
the GOV, the management committee, in this case the Hai Phong Export 
Processing Zone and Industrial Zone Authority, ``plays no role in the 
negotiations between the infrastructure development company and the 
enterprise.'' See GOV SQR at 14. The GOV's claim is supported by 
Haiphong Hongyuan, which informed us that ``Haiphong Hongyuan leased 
the land-use rights from the Haiphong Doson {Industrial Joint Venture 
Company{time}  as detailed in the land lease agreement included at 
Exhibit 17-A.'' Haiphong Hongyuan's lease agreement shows that, 
although the agreement is subject to the ``management rules and 
regulations of Hai Phong Export Processing Zone and Industrial Zone 
Authority and Hai Phong Do Son Industrial Zone,'' the contracting 
parties are Hai Phong Do Son Industrial Joint Venture Company and 
Haiphong Hongyuan. See Haiphong Hongyuan IQR at Exhibit 17. Haiphong 
Hongyuan also provided a memorandum of understanding predating its 
establishment, between Hai Phong Do Son Industrial Joint Venture 
Company and MAT Holdings, Inc., which summarizes the result of 
negotiations between the two parties for Haiphong Hongyuan's land. See 
Haiphong Hongyuan IQR at Exhibit 18. Thus, we preliminarily determine 
that the price of Haiphong Hongyuan's land and the terms of its lease 
were established through negotiations between Haiphong Hongyuan (or its 
parent company) and Hai Phong Do Son

[[Page 19218]]

Industrial Joint Venture Company. Additional information on which we 
are basing our determination cannot be discussed in this notice because 
the GOV designated it business proprietary. See Haiphong Hongyuan 
Prelim Calc Memo.
    The Department has found that when an industrial zone is part of a 
larger jurisdiction, and the larger jurisdiction is responsible for 
providing land use rights throughout the jurisdiction, the provision of 
such rights within the industrial zone is regionally specific under 
section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act.\3\ However, in this instance, the 
authority to negotiate the price and enter into land use contracts in 
the Hai Phong Do Son Industrial Zone rests with the Haiphong Do Son 
Industrial Joint Venture Company. As such, the provision of land use 
rights within this industrial zone is not limited to an enterprise or 
industry located within a designated geographical zone. Therefore, we 
are preliminary determining that Haiphong Hongyuan did not receive a 
benefit, and did not use this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, 
74 FR 64045 (December 7, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not finding this program ``not countervailable'' because the 
allegation involved a national law that authorizes exemptions and 
reductions in land use fees in the country's designated industrial 
zones.\4\ Because this program is authorized under a national law, the 
exemptions and reductions of land use fees may vary from industrial 
zone to industrial zone. Thus, our determination with respect to the 
provision of land use rights to Haiphong Hongyuan is limited to the 
industrial zone in which the company is located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Law on Investment of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 
National Assembly No. 59/2005/QH11 at Article 36, and the Government 
of Vietnam Decree No. 108/2006/ND/CP Providing Guidelines for 
Implementation of a Number of Articles of Law on Investment at 
Article 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the record as a whole supports the above finding, there 
are some apparent contradictions in the GOV's response. For example, in 
its first supplemental questionnaire response, the GOV states that 
``the industrial zone management authority is limited to the specific 
industrial zone that it administers, and has no land use right 
authority beyond the industrial zone.'' However, on the next page, the 
GOV states that ``{t{time} he regulating authority is called the Hai 
Phong Economic Zone Authority. This authority has jurisdiction over all 
of the industrial zones within Hai Phong City.'' See GOV SQR at 15-16. 
The documentation provided by the GOV and Haiphong Hongyuan indicates 
that the entity is called the ``Hai Phong Export Processing Zone and 
Industrial Zone Authority.'' See, e.g., Haiphong Hongyuan IQR at 
Exhibit 17; see also GOV SQR at Exhibit GOVS1-21. We intend to seek 
additional clarification from the GOV before issuing our final 
determination.
    SeAH VINA's land payments and contract are through a provincial 
government. However, the land rent was established by a contract that 
preceded the January 11, 2007 cut-off date. Thus, consistent with the 
Bags from Vietnam Final Determination, we are preliminarily determining 
that this program does not provide benefits to SeAH VINA.

C. Government Provision of Water for LTAR in Industrial Zones

    Petitioners claim that occupants of industrial zones are offered 
special rates on water. Information in the questionnaire responses 
shows that both Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA sourced their water 
from industrial development companies. The GOV stated that water 
wholesalers provided the industrial development companies with the 
water. Moreover, both companies paid the applicable tariff rates for 
their water and there was no separate rate for companies located within 
the industrial zones.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the GOV's provision 
of water is not specific to the industrial zones in which the 
respondents are located. Thus, we preliminarily determine that this 
program is not used.

D. Land Rent Reduction or Exemption for Exporters
E. Land Rent Reduction or Exemption for FIEs
F. Export Promotion Program
G. New Product Development Program
H. Income Tax Preferences for Encouraged Industries
I. Income Tax Preferences for Enterprises in Industrial Zones
J. Tax Refund for Reinvestment by FIEs
K. Income Tax Preferences for FIEs
L. Income Tax Preferences for Exporters
M. Preferential Lending for Exporters
N. Import Duty Preferences for FIEs

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 
calculated individual rates for respondents individually investigated, 
SeAH VINA and Haiphong Hongyuan. We have also calculated an all-others 
rate. Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for 
companies not investigated, we will determine an all-others rate by 
weight-averaging the individual subsidy rates by each company's exports 
of the subject merchandise to the United States. However, the all-
others rate may not include zero and de minimis rates or any rates 
based solely on the facts available. As SeAH VINA's preliminary 
calculated subsidy rate is de minimis, Haiphong Hongyuan's calculated 
rate is being used as the All Others rate.
    We preliminarily determine the total estimated net countervailable 
subsidy rates to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Net subsidy
                   Exporter/Manufacturer                      rate  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel VINA Corp......................................          0.04
Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd..          8.06
All Others................................................          8.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 
directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of circular welded 
pipe from Vietnam that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such 
entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. However, we are 
not directing CBP to suspend liquidation of entries produced by SeAH 
VINA, because its rate is de minimis.
ITC Notification
    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

[[Page 19219]]

Disclosure and Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose to the 
parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five 
days of its announcement. Due to the anticipated timing of verification 
and issuance of verification reports, case briefs for this 
investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the 
issuance of the last verification report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for 
a further discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed 
within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a 
table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in this investigation, the hearing will be held two days after 
the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must electronically submit a written request to 
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration using IA ACCESS, 
within 30 days of the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and 
telephone; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues 
to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs. Id.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. 2012-7748 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P