Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 25136-25141 [2012-10241]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
25136
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices
Dated: Issued this 23rd day, of April 2012.
Donald G. Salo, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012–10190 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–891]
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof
From the People’s Republic of China;
Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Hoefke or Fred Baker, 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) 482–4947 or (202) 482–
2924, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On January 10, 2012, the Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the 2009–2010
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on hand trucks
and certain parts thereof from the
People’s Republic of China. See Hand
Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 1464
(January 10, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Extension of Time Limits for Final
Results of Review
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires
that the Department complete the final
results of an administrative review
within 120 days after the date on which
notice of the preliminary results was
published in the Federal Register.
However, if it is not practicable to
complete the review within this time
period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act
allows the Department to extend the
time limit for the final results to a
maximum of 180 days after the
publication date of the preliminary
results.
The Department finds that it is not
practicable to complete the final results
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:44 Apr 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
of this review within the original time
frame because the Department continues
to require additional time to analyze
issues raised in recently filed case and
rebuttal briefs. Thus, the Department
finds it is not practicable to complete
this review by the current deadline (i.e.,
May 9, 2012). Accordingly, the
Department is extending the time limit
for completion of the final results of this
administrative review by an additional
60 days (i.e., until July 8, 2012), in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
This extension is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: April 20, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012–10270 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–201–838]
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and
Tube From Mexico: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting a new
shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on seamless refined copper pipe
and tube from Mexico for the period
November 22, 2010, through April 30,
2011, in response to a request from GD
Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (GD
Affiliates).
We preliminarily find that the U.S.
sales of subject merchandise produced
and exported by Golden Dragon 1 were
not sold below normal value (NV). If
these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results, the Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits
of zero percent and to liquidate without
regard to antidumping duties any
entries for which the assessment rate is
zero or de minimis. See the
‘‘Assessment Rate’’ section of this
notice. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
SUMMARY:
1 The
Department uses the name Golden Dragon
when we refer to the collective group of Golden
Dragon companies, which includes GD Affiliates.
See ‘‘Corporate Structure’’ section below.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of New
Shipper Review’’ section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or Joy Zhang, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482–
1168, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the
antidumping duty order on seamless
refined copper pipe and tube from
Mexico on November 22, 2010. See
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube
From Mexico and the People’s Republic
of China: Antidumping Duty Orders and
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value From Mexico,
75 FR 71070 (November 22, 2010). On
May 31, 2011, the Department received
a request from GD Affiliates in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), to
conduct a new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on seamless
refined copper pipe and tube from
Mexico. The Department found that the
request for review met the statutory and
regulatory requirements for initiation in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act) and 19 CFR 351.214(d), and
initiated the review on June 30, 2011.
See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and
Tube From Mexico: Notice of Initiation
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 76 FR 39850 (July 7, 2011).
On July 1, 2011, the Department
issued its new shipper questionnaire to
GD Affiliates. On August 22, 2011,
Golden Dragon submitted its section A
through D response. On September 6,
2011, the petitioners 2 filed a cost
allegation. On October 6, 2011, the
Department initiated a cost
investigation. On September 21, 2011,
the Department issued its first
supplemental questionnaire for sections
A through D, to Golden Dragon, for
which a response was filed on October
12, 2011. On October 26, 2011, the
petitioners requested that the
Department rescind the review, because
GD Affiliates was neither the producer
nor exporter of the subject merchandise,
and the review was not requested by
Golden Dragon’s affiliate, Hong Kong
GD Trading Co., Ltd., the affiliated
2 The domestic interested parties for this
proceeding are Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland
Copper Products, LLC, Mueller Copper Tube
Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube Company,
Inc. (collectively, the petitioners).
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
company that owns the subject
merchandise, arranged for its
production in Mexico, and sold it in the
United States. On November 4, 2011,
Golden Dragon responded to the
petitioners’ request that the Department
rescind the review. Golden Dragon
contended that the subject merchandise
was produced in Mexico and was
exported from Mexico by GD Affiliates.
Golden Dragon also contended that
there is 100 percent common ownership
of all Golden Dragon companies
involved in the production in Mexico of
the subject merchandise sold in the
United Sates.
The Department issued a second,
third, and fourth supplemental
questionnaire for section D, on
December 21, 2011, January 30, 2012,
and March 27, 2012. Golden Dragon
submitted its responses to the section D
supplemental on January 18, 2012,
February 21, 2012, and April 6, 2012,
respectively.
On December 23, 2011, the
Department extended the deadline for
the preliminary results to April 23,
2012. See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe
and Tube from Mexico: Extension of
Time Limits for the Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 76 FR 80333 (December 23,
2011).
included within the scope of the order
are all sets of covered products,
including ‘‘line sets’’ of seamless refined
copper tubes (with or without fittings or
insulation) suitable for connecting an
outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to
an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase
‘‘all sets of covered products’’ denotes
any combination of items put up for sale
that is comprised of merchandise
subject to the scope.
‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1)
Metal containing at least 99.85 percent
by weight of copper; or (2) metal
containing at least 97.5 percent by
weight of copper, provided that the
content by weight of any other element
does not exceed the following limits:
Scope of the Order
For the purpose of the order, the
products covered are all seamless
circular refined copper pipes and tubes,
including redraw hollows, greater than
or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in
length and measuring less than 12.130
inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside
diameter (OD), regardless of wall
thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced
with inner grooves or ridges),
manufacturing process (e.g., hot
finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer
surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with
grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish
(e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end,
expanded end, crimped end, threaded),
coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation,
attachments (e.g., plain, capped,
plugged, with compression or other
fitting), or physical configuration (e.g.,
straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools).
The scope of the order covers, but is
not limited to, seamless refined copper
pipe and tube produced or comparable
to the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) ASTM–B42, ASTM–
B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM-B88, ASTM–
B88M, ASTM–B188, ASTM-B251,
ASTM–B251M, ASTM–B280, ASTM–
B302, ASTM–B306, ASTM–359, ASTM–
B743, ASTM–B819, and ASTM–B903
specifications and meeting the physical
parameters described therein. Also
Excluded from the scope of the order
are all seamless circular hollows of
refined copper less than 12 inches in
length whose OD (actual) exceeds its
length. The products subject to the order
are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7411.10.1030 and
7411.10.1090 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Products subject to the order may also
enter under HTSUS subheadings
7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050,
8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
25137
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:44 Apr 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
Element
Ag—Silver ...............................
As—Arsenic ............................
Cd—Cadmium ........................
Cr—Chromium ........................
Mg—Magnesium .....................
Pb—Lead ................................
S—Sulfur ................................
Sn—Tin ...................................
Te—Tellurium .........................
Zn—Zinc .................................
Zr—Zirconium .........................
Other elements (each) ............
Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd.;
(4) GD Copper U.S.A. Inc.; (5) GD
Affiliates Servicios S. de R.L. de C.V.;
and (6) GD Affiliates. In questionnaire
responses, these companies are
collectively referred to as Golden
Dragon.3
In its responses, Golden Dragon
explained that Hong Kong GD Trading
Co. Ltd. buys the raw material on the
world market and arranges to have it
shipped to the production facility in
Mexico, where it is converted to subject
merchandise under consignment
pursuant to a maquila agreement with
GD Affiliates.4 Subsequently, finished
merchandise is shipped to unaffiliated
customers. The questionnaire responses
set forth the various activities of each of
Limiting
these entities, showing they are
content
operating as a single entity for purposes
percent
of the production and sale of subject
by weight
merchandise from Mexico to the United
0.25 States.5
Based upon the record of this new
0.5
1.3
shipper review, the Department
1.4
preliminarily determines that Golden
0.8
Dragon is the producer and exporter of
1.5
subject merchandise and, therefore, is
0.7
entitled to this new shipper review.
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.3
0.3
Corporate Structure
As the petitioners point out, this new
shipper review was requested by GD
Affiliates. In its initial questionnaire
response, as the petitioners noted, GD
Affiliates identified affiliated parties
involved with the production and sale
of subject merchandise from Mexico.
Specifically, GD Affiliates identified the
following affiliated parties, which are
all wholly owned subsidiaries of Golden
Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group,
Inc., the corporate parent located in the
People’s Republic of China: (1) GD
Copper Cooperatief U.A.; (2) Hong Kong
GD Trading Co. Ltd.; (3) Golden Dragon
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Bona Fides Analysis
We preliminarily determine that these
sales are bona fide. In considering the
record of this review we find that there
are a significant number of U.S. sales
made to unaffiliated parties; these sales
were made during and after the period
of this review. In addition, there is no
information indicating that sales are not
commercially reasonable. See Tianjin
Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246,
1249 (CIT 2005). Because the
information is business proprietary, see
‘‘Bona Fides Analysis Memorandum’’
dated April 23, 2012, for a detailed
discussion. We will consider this matter
further for the final results.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) for this
new shipper review is November 22,
2010, through April 30, 2011.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Golden
Dragon’s sales of subject merchandise
from Mexico were made in the United
States at less than NV, we compared the
monthly, weighted-average constructed
export price (CEP) to the monthly,
weighted-average NV, as described in
3 See Golden Dragon’s August 22, 2011, section A
response at A–5 through A–8 and Exhibit A–2;
Golden Dragon’s August 29, 2011, section D
response at D–4 through D–5 and D–17.
4 Id.
5 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
25138
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices
the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d), we compared
CEP to the NV of the foreign like
product in the appropriate
corresponding calendar month.6
Product Comparisons
Pursuant to section 771(16)(A) of the
Act, for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to the
U.S. sales, the Department considers all
products, as described in the ‘‘Scope of
the Order’’ section of this notice above,
that were sold in the comparison or
third-country market in the ordinary
course of trade. In accordance with
sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act,
where there are no sales of identical
merchandise in the comparison or thirdcountry market made in the ordinary
course of trade, we compared U.S. sales
to sales of the most similar foreign like
product based on the characteristics
listed in sections B and C of our
antidumping questionnaire: (1) Type
and ASTM specification; (2) copper
alloy unified number system; (3) outer
diameter; (4) wall thickness; (5) physical
form; (6) temper designation; (7) bore;
(8) outer surface; and (9) attachments.
We found that Golden Dragon had sales
of foreign like product that were
identical or similar in these respects to
the merchandise sold in the United
States, and therefore compared the U.S.
product with identical or similar
merchandise sold in the home market,
based on the characteristics listed
above, in that order of priority.
Date of Sale
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the
Department will normally use the date
of invoice as the date of sale, unless a
different date better reflects the date on
which the material terms of sale are
established. In its response to the
Department’s questionnaire, Golden
Dragon reported the invoice date as the
date of sale in both markets. However,
in section A of Golden Dragon’s
response, Golden Dragon reported that
the quantity of each transaction is not
fixed until the shipment is made. In the
case of consignment sales, when the
product is withdrawn by a customer, the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
6 In
these preliminary results, the Department
applied the weighted-average dumping margin
calculation method adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average
Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77
FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for
Reviews). In particular, the Department compared
monthly weighted-average export prices (or CEPs)
with monthly weighted-average NVs and granted
offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the
calculation of the weighted-average dumping
margin.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:44 Apr 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
invoice date is the appropriate date of
sale. See Golden Dragon’s Section A
response, dated August 22, 2011, at
A–17. Golden Dragon also asserted that
the Department should compare U.S.
sales to home market sales with the
same metal exchange and date, because
the invoice date alone is not an
appropriate basis to determine the
transaction dates to be used in the
dumping margin calculations. Golden
Dragon argues that the price of copper
can fluctuate sharply on a daily basis.
See id. See also Golden Dragon’s
Section B response, dated August 22,
2011, at B–19–21. However, as noted
below, we do not find that this case
warrants special treatment of costs
which warrants comparison of U.S.
sales to home market sales by invoice
date and the same metal exchange date.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find
invoice date to be the appropriate date
of sale with respect to Golden Dragon’s
sales to the U.S. and home market.
However, during the POR, shipment
occurred prior to invoice date for certain
sales. Therefore, consistent with the
Department’s practice, we used the
shipment date as the date of sale where
the shipment date occurs before the
invoice date because the quantity is
fixed at the time of shipment. See
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 18074, 18079–80 (April
10, 2006), unchanged in Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils from the
Republic of Korea; Final Results and
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR
4486 (January 31, 2007), and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5.
U.S. Price
Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP
as ‘‘the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) in the United States before or after
the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of
such merchandise or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter,
to a purchaser not affiliated with the
producer or exporter,’’ as adjusted
under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
For purposes of this new shipper
review, Golden Dragon classified its
U.S. sales as CEP sales because Golden
Dragon’s U.S. affiliate is responsible for
the sale to the unaffiliated customer.
Since Golden Dragon’s U.S. affiliate is
responsible for the sale to the
unaffiliated customer in the United
States, we are treating Golden Dragon’s
U.S. sales as CEP sales. We calculated
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
CEP using the price Golden Dragon
charged its unaffiliated customer. We
made deductions and adjustments,
where appropriate, from the starting
price for international freight, inland
insurance, U.S. warehouse expenses,
U.S. brokerage and handling expenses,
credit expenses, inventory carrying
costs incurred in the United States, and
other indirect selling expenses in the
United States associated with economic
activity in the United States. See
sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of
the Act. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of
the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP
profit.
Information about the specific
adjustments and our analysis of the
adjustments is business proprietary, and
is detailed in the Memorandum to The
File, through James Terpstra, Program
Manager, from Dennis McClure,
International Trade Analyst, Analysis
Memorandum for Golden Dragon
Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review of Seamless
Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from
Mexico, dated concurrently with this
notice (Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum).
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
In order to determine whether there is
a sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product is five percent or
more of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared the volume of
Golden Dragon’s home market sales of
the foreign like product to the volume
of its U.S. sale of subject merchandise,
in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Based on
this comparison, we determined that
Golden Dragon had sufficient sales in
the home market to serve as a viable
basis for calculating NV during the POR.
See Golden Dragon’s Section A
response, dated August 22, 2011, at
Exhibit A–1.
B. Level of Trade
In accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on
sales in the comparison market at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the export
price or CEP sales in the U.S. market.
For further discussion of our LOT
analysis, see Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
After analyzing the information on the
record with respect to the following
selling activities: (1) Sales Forecasting;
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(2) Strategic/Economic Planning; (3)
Engineering Services; (4) Advertising;
(5) Sales Promotion; (6) Packing; (7)
Inventory Maintenance; (8) Order Input/
Processing; (9) Direct Sales Personnel;
(10) Sales/Marketing Support; (11)
Technical Assistance; (12) Manage Cash
Discounts; (13) Pay Commissions; (14)
Provide After-Sales Services; (15)
Arrange Freight and Delivery; and (16)
Negotiate, Order, and Collect Payment,
we preliminarily find that all reported
sales are made at the same LOT. For a
further discussion of LOT, see ‘‘Level of
Trade Analysis’’ section in the
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A) of the Act, to initiate a cost
of production (COP) investigation the
Department must have ‘‘reasonable
grounds’’ to believe or suspect that sales
of the foreign like product under
consideration for the determination of
NV have been made at prices below the
COP of that product. An allegation will
be deemed to have provided reasonable
grounds if: (1) A reasonable
methodology is used in the calculation
of the COP including the use of the
respondent’s actual data, if available; (2)
using this methodology, sales are shown
to be made at prices below the COP; and
(3) the sales allegedly made at below
cost are representative of a broader
range of foreign models which may be
used as a basis for NV. See section
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act and Notice of
Preliminary Results of the New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon Quality Steel Products from
Brazil, 70 FR 48668, 48670 (August 19,
2005), unchanged in Notice of Final
Results of New Shipper Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality
Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 62297
(October 31, 2005). The Department
found that pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Act, the petitioners provided, in
their September 6, 2011, sales-belowcost allegation, a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that Golden Dragon
was selling seamless refined copper
pipe and tube at below the COP in the
home market. See Memorandum to
Melissa Skinner from the Team, The
Domestic Producers’ Allegation of Sales
Below the Cost of Production for GD
Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V., Golden
Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group,
Inc., and GD Copper (U.S.A.), dated
October 6, 2011. As a result, the
Department initiated an investigation to
determine whether Golden Dragon made
home market sales during the POR at
prices below COP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:44 Apr 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
Volatility in Raw Materials
Golden Dragon alleges that the
volatility in daily commodity metal
prices poses unique issues that the
Department’s traditional antidumping
methodology does not adequately
address.7 Golden Dragon asserts that
because it has shown that the company
goes to great lengths in the normal
course of business to eliminate all risk
associated with metal fluctuations, the
Department should rely on Golden
Dragon’s reported day-specific 8 metal
costs, rather than POR weighted-average
metal costs for purposes of its margin
analysis, consistent with the
Department’s practice (see Brass Sheet
and Strip from Germany: Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 66347
(October 28, 2010) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 (Brass Sheet and Strip)).
Golden Dragon claims that because of
the risks associated with fluctuating
copper prices, the company has
developed a business practice where
Golden Dragon and its customers agree
to fix the copper price component of the
sales of seamless copper pipe and tube
based on published prices from a global
commodity futures exchange, such as
the London Metals Exchange (LME).9
The prices that Golden Dragon
subsequently invoices its customers are
comprised of two components, the
agreed upon fixed metal price and a
fabrication charge, both of which are
listed separately on the invoice for each
sales transaction.10 Golden Dragon
claims that this business model, and the
company’s metal hedging mechanism,11
allows Golden Dragon to shift the entire
risk of fluctuating metal prices to its
customers.12
In Brass Sheet and Strip, the
Department found that the respondent
obtained metal neutrality as a result of
its business practice of purchasing the
same quantity of metal at the same
metal price (e.g., LME price) for the
same day (‘‘metal fixation day’’) as the
sale price of the metal agreed to with its
customer (i.e., metal price reflected on
7 See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s August 29, 2011
submission at A–18.
8 Day-specific costs reported by Golden Dragon
include metal costs specific to a particular day, a
week-long average, a monthly average, or an average
of months. See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s April 6, 2012
submission at exhibit 1, data field ‘‘METALDTH.’’
9 See Golden Dragon’s Section A response, dated
August 22, 2011, at A–17.
10 See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s January 18, 2012
submission at exhibit SSD–5.
11 See Golden Dragon’s January 18, 2012
submission at 8 for a description of the hedging
mechanism.
12 See Golden Dragon’s Section D response, dated
August 29, 2011, at D–16.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25139
the respondent’s sales invoice to the
customer). In those instances where the
purchase quantity and sales quantity of
metal differed on a given day (metal
fixation date), the difference in quantity
was hedged. Because the Department
found that the respondent’s sales and
purchases were specifically linked on a
daily basis through back-to-back
physical purchases or hedging
transactions in Brass Sheet and Strip,
the Department determined that the
reliance on the respondent’s reported
day-specific metal costs was warranted.
As such, the Department departed from
its normal practice of calculating a
weighted-average POR metal cost and
relied instead on the reported dayspecific metal costs.
In the instant case, Golden Dragon
claims that Hong Kong GD Trading Co.,
Ltd.’s metal purchasing and hedging
mechanism is identical to the Brass
Sheet and Strip respondent’s metal
purchasing and hedging practices. As
such, the Golden Dragon asserts that the
Department should rely on Golden
Dragon’s reported day-specific metal
costs consistent with Brass Sheet and
Strip. We disagree. The record evidence
submitted by Golden Dragon does not
show that the quantities of metal
reported for specific metal fixation dates
for Golden Dragon’s sales to customers
in Mexico and the United States were
specifically linked on a daily basis
through back-to-back physical
purchases or hedging transactions. For
example, for home market and U.S.
sales 13 with metal fixation dates
occurring on specific days within
December 2010, we were unable to
reconcile the sales quantities to the
purchasing and hedging transaction
information submitted by Golden
Dragon for the month of December
2010.14 Because the record evidence in
this case fails to demonstrate that
Golden Dragon is able to maintain
complete metal cost neutrality, similar
to the respondent in Brass Sheet and
Strip, we preliminarily find that the
reliance on a daily metal cost
methodology is not warranted.
Therefore, we have relied on our normal
practice of calculating a POR weightedaverage cost of metal for our preliminary
analysis.
13 See data file accompanying Golden Dragon’s
April 6, 2012 submission titled ‘‘GDCOPHM04’’ and
data file accompanying Golden Dragon’s February
21, 2012 submission titled ‘‘GDCOPUS02,’’
respectively.
14 See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s February 21, 2012
submission at exhibits 3SD–3, 3SD–4, 3SD–5, and
3SD–6.1.
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
25140
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated Golden
Dragon’s COP based on the sum of
materials and conversion for the foreign
like product, plus amounts for general
and administrative expenses and
interest expenses (see ‘‘Test of
Comparison Market Sales Prices’’
section, below, for treatment of home
market selling expenses). We revised
Golden Dragon’s reported metal costs to
reflect the weighted-average metal
consumption cost for the POR. We
recalculated the per-unit cost of services
provided to GD Affiliates by Hong Kong
GD Trading Co., Ltd., and Golden
Dragon Holding (Hong Kong)
International, Ltd. by applying the
reported services ratio to the per-unit
total cost of manufacturing rather than
the per-unit direct material costs as
reported by Golden Dragon. Details
regarding the calculation of COP,
including adjustments made to the COP
reported by Golden Dragon, as well as
other calculation details can be found in
the Golden Dragon Preliminary Cost
Memorandum. See Cost of Production
and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary
Results—G.D. Affiliates S. de R.L. de
C.V., Golden Dragon Precise Copper
Tube Group, Inc., and GD Copper (USA)
from LaVonne Clark to Neal Halper,
dated concurrently with this notice.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales
Prices
On a product-specific basis, pursuant
to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we
compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales
prices of the foreign like product, in
order to determine whether the sale
prices were below the COP. For
purposes of this comparison, we used
COP exclusive of selling and packing
expenses. The prices (inclusive of
billing adjustments, where appropriate)
were exclusive of any applicable
movement charges, discounts, direct
and indirect selling expenses, and
packing expenses.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3. Results of the COP Test
In determining whether to disregard
home market sales made at prices below
the COP, we examined, in accordance
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the
Act whether: (1) within an extended
period of time, such sales were made in
substantial quantities; and (2) such sales
were made at prices which permitted
the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time in the normal
course of trade. In accordance with
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:44 Apr 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
where less than 20 percent of the
respondent’s home market sales of a
given product are at prices less than the
COP, we do not disregard any belowcost sales of that product because we
determine that in such instances the
below-cost sales were not made within
an extended period of time and in
‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20
percent or more of a respondent’s sales
of a given product are at prices less than
the COP, we disregard the below-cost
sales when: (1) they were made within
an extended period of time in
‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act; and (2) based on our comparison of
prices to the weighted-average COPs for
the POR, they were at prices which
would not permit the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time,
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)
of the Act.
We found that, for certain products,
more than 20 percent of Golden
Dragon’s home market sales were at
prices less than the COP and, in
addition, such sales did not provide for
the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. We therefore excluded
these sales and used the remaining sales
as the basis for determining NV, in
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV for Golden Dragon
on the reported packed, delivered
prices, FOB plant, or delivered to the
customer’s warehouse and sold on a
consignment basis to comparison
market customers. We made deductions
from the starting price, where
appropriate, for billing adjustments,
early payment discounts, credit
expenses, and inland freight, pursuant
to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
We added U.S. packing costs and
deducted home market packing costs, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B)(i) of the Act. We also made
adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses
incurred in the home market or the
United States where commissions were
granted on sales in one market but not
in the other, the ‘‘commission offset.’’
Specifically, where commissions are
incurred in one market, but not in the
other, we will limit the amount of such
allowance to the amount of either the
indirect selling expenses incurred in the
one market or the commissions allowed
in the other market, whichever is less.
When comparing U.S. sales with
comparison market sales of similar, but
not identical, merchandise, we also
made adjustments for physical
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
differences in the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We
based this adjustment on the difference
in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject
merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.415(a) based on the exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales
as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review
As a result of our review, we
preliminarily find, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), that the following
weighted-average dumping percentage
margin exists for Golden Dragon for the
period November 22, 2010, through
April 30, 2011:
Manufacturer/exporter
Golden Dragon ...........................
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
0.00
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of this new shipper
review, the Department shall determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions for Golden Dragon directly
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of this
new shipper review.
If Golden Dragon’s weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis in
the final results of this review, we will
calculate an importer-specific
assessment rate on the basis of the ratio
of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the importer’s
examined sales and the total entered
value of the sales in accordance with
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).15 We will instruct
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review if the importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
intend to instruct CBP to liquidate
15 In these preliminary results, the Department
applied the assessment rate calculation method
adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e. on
the basis of monthly average-to-average
comparisons using only the transactions associated
with that importer with offsets being provided for
non-dumped comparisons.
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices
without regard to antidumping duties
any entries for which the assessment
rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than
0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
this new shipper review, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash deposit rate for subject
merchandise that is manufactured by
Golden Dragon and exported by Golden
Dragon established in the final results of
this new shipper review, except no cash
deposit will be required if its weightedaverage dumping margin is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, but was covered in a previous
review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a
previous review, or the original 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) the cash deposit
rate for all other manufacturers and/or
exporters of this merchandise, shall be
26.03 percent, the all-others rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and
Tube From Mexico and the People’s
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty
Orders and Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value From Mexico, 75 FR 71070
(November 22, 2010). These
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Further, effective upon publication of
the final results, we intend to instruct
CBP that importers may no longer post
a bond or other security in lieu of a cash
deposit on imports of seamless refined
copper pipe and tube from Mexico,
manufactured by Golden Dragon and
exported by Golden Dragon. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to
parties the calculations performed in
connection with these preliminary
results within five days of the date of
public announcement. See 19 CFR
351.224(b). Unless notified by the
Department, pursuant to 19 CFR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:44 Apr 26, 2012
Jkt 226001
351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may
submit cases briefs not later than 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed
not later than five days after the
deadline for filing the case briefs. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
each argument: (1) A statement of the
issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Additionally, parties are requested to
provide their case briefs and rebuttal
briefs in electronic format (e.g.,
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Adobe
Acrobat, etc.).
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing or to participate if one is
requested must submit a written request
to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party’s
name, address and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of issues to be discussed. Issues
raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
The Department will issue the final
results of this review, including the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
any written briefs, within 90 days of
signature of these preliminary results,
unless the final results are extended.
See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review is issued
and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i).
Dated: April 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–10241 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25141
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–428–815, A–580–816]
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Germany and South
Korea: Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary and Final Results of Third
Antidumping Duty Sunset Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis McClure or James Terpstra at
202–482–5973 or 202–482–3965,
respectively, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
AGENCY:
Background
On January 3, 2012, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) initiated
the third sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty (AD) orders on
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products (CORE) from Germany and
South Korea (Korea), pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). See Initiation of
Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 77 FR 85
(January 3, 2012). Within the deadline
specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i), the
Department received notices of intent to
participate, in both sunset reviews, on
behalf of United States Steel
Corporation, Nucor Corporation, and
ArcelorMittal Steel USA (collectively,
domestic interested parties). Each
claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a
producer of domestic like product. The
Department received timely substantive
responses from the domestic interested
parties. On February 22, 2012, after
analyzing the substantive and rebuttal
responses of interested parties,
consistent with 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), the Department
determined to conduct expedited sunset
reviews of these AD orders on the basis
that no respondent interested party
submitted a substantive response in
either review.
On February 14, 2012, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice entitled Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14,
2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25136-25141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10241]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-838]
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined
copper pipe and tube from Mexico for the period November 22, 2010,
through April 30, 2011, in response to a request from GD Affiliates S.
de R.L. de C.V. (GD Affiliates).
We preliminarily find that the U.S. sales of subject merchandise
produced and exported by Golden Dragon \1\ were not sold below normal
value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of zero percent and to
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which
the assessment rate is zero or de minimis. See the ``Assessment Rate''
section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on
these preliminary results. See the ``Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department uses the name Golden Dragon when we refer to
the collective group of Golden Dragon companies, which includes GD
Affiliates. See ``Corporate Structure'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or Joy Zhang, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5973 or (202) 482-1168, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on seamless
refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico on November 22, 2010. See
Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico and the People's
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value From Mexico, 75 FR 71070
(November 22, 2010). On May 31, 2011, the Department received a request
from GD Affiliates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), to conduct a
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined
copper pipe and tube from Mexico. The Department found that the request
for review met the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation
in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.214(d), and initiated the review on
June 30, 2011. See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico:
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 76 FR
39850 (July 7, 2011).
On July 1, 2011, the Department issued its new shipper
questionnaire to GD Affiliates. On August 22, 2011, Golden Dragon
submitted its section A through D response. On September 6, 2011, the
petitioners \2\ filed a cost allegation. On October 6, 2011, the
Department initiated a cost investigation. On September 21, 2011, the
Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire for sections A
through D, to Golden Dragon, for which a response was filed on October
12, 2011. On October 26, 2011, the petitioners requested that the
Department rescind the review, because GD Affiliates was neither the
producer nor exporter of the subject merchandise, and the review was
not requested by Golden Dragon's affiliate, Hong Kong GD Trading Co.,
Ltd., the affiliated
[[Page 25137]]
company that owns the subject merchandise, arranged for its production
in Mexico, and sold it in the United States. On November 4, 2011,
Golden Dragon responded to the petitioners' request that the Department
rescind the review. Golden Dragon contended that the subject
merchandise was produced in Mexico and was exported from Mexico by GD
Affiliates. Golden Dragon also contended that there is 100 percent
common ownership of all Golden Dragon companies involved in the
production in Mexico of the subject merchandise sold in the United
Sates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The domestic interested parties for this proceeding are
Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland Copper Products, LLC, Mueller
Copper Tube Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc.
(collectively, the petitioners).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued a second, third, and fourth supplemental
questionnaire for section D, on December 21, 2011, January 30, 2012,
and March 27, 2012. Golden Dragon submitted its responses to the
section D supplemental on January 18, 2012, February 21, 2012, and
April 6, 2012, respectively.
On December 23, 2011, the Department extended the deadline for the
preliminary results to April 23, 2012. See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe
and Tube from Mexico: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 76 FR 80333 (December
23, 2011).
Scope of the Order
For the purpose of the order, the products covered are all seamless
circular refined copper pipes and tubes, including redraw hollows,
greater than or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in length and measuring
less than 12.130 inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside diameter (OD),
regardless of wall thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced with inner
grooves or ridges), manufacturing process (e.g., hot finished, cold-
drawn, annealed), outer surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with grooves,
ridges, fins, or gills), end finish (e.g., plain end, swaged end,
flared end, expanded end, crimped end, threaded), coating (e.g.,
plastic, paint), insulation, attachments (e.g., plain, capped, plugged,
with compression or other fitting), or physical configuration (e.g.,
straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools).
The scope of the order covers, but is not limited to, seamless
refined copper pipe and tube produced or comparable to the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) ASTM-B42, ASTM-B68, ASTM-B75,
ASTM-B88, ASTM-B88M, ASTM-B188, ASTM-B251, ASTM-B251M, ASTM-B280, ASTM-
B302, ASTM-B306, ASTM-359, ASTM-B743, ASTM-B819, and ASTM-B903
specifications and meeting the physical parameters described therein.
Also included within the scope of the order are all sets of covered
products, including ``line sets'' of seamless refined copper tubes
(with or without fittings or insulation) suitable for connecting an
outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to an indoor evaporator unit. The
phrase ``all sets of covered products'' denotes any combination of
items put up for sale that is comprised of merchandise subject to the
scope.
``Refined copper'' is defined as: (1) Metal containing at least
99.85 percent by weight of copper; or (2) metal containing at least
97.5 percent by weight of copper, provided that the content by weight
of any other element does not exceed the following limits:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limiting
content
Element percent by
weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag--Silver................................................ 0.25
As--Arsenic............................................... 0.5
Cd--Cadmium............................................... 1.3
Cr--Chromium.............................................. 1.4
Mg--Magnesium............................................. 0.8
Pb--Lead.................................................. 1.5
S--Sulfur................................................. 0.7
Sn--Tin................................................... 0.8
Te--Tellurium............................................. 0.8
Zn--Zinc.................................................. 1.0
Zr--Zirconium............................................. 0.3
Other elements (each)..................................... 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of the order are all seamless circular
hollows of refined copper less than 12 inches in length whose OD
(actual) exceeds its length. The products subject to the order are
currently classifiable under subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Products subject to the order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings
7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Corporate Structure
As the petitioners point out, this new shipper review was requested
by GD Affiliates. In its initial questionnaire response, as the
petitioners noted, GD Affiliates identified affiliated parties involved
with the production and sale of subject merchandise from Mexico.
Specifically, GD Affiliates identified the following affiliated
parties, which are all wholly owned subsidiaries of Golden Dragon
Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc., the corporate parent located in the
People's Republic of China: (1) GD Copper Cooperatief U.A.; (2) Hong
Kong GD Trading Co. Ltd.; (3) Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong)
International, Ltd.; (4) GD Copper U.S.A. Inc.; (5) GD Affiliates
Servicios S. de R.L. de C.V.; and (6) GD Affiliates. In questionnaire
responses, these companies are collectively referred to as Golden
Dragon.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Golden Dragon's August 22, 2011, section A response at
A-5 through A-8 and Exhibit A-2; Golden Dragon's August 29, 2011,
section D response at D-4 through D-5 and D-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its responses, Golden Dragon explained that Hong Kong GD Trading
Co. Ltd. buys the raw material on the world market and arranges to have
it shipped to the production facility in Mexico, where it is converted
to subject merchandise under consignment pursuant to a maquila
agreement with GD Affiliates.\4\ Subsequently, finished merchandise is
shipped to unaffiliated customers. The questionnaire responses set
forth the various activities of each of these entities, showing they
are operating as a single entity for purposes of the production and
sale of subject merchandise from Mexico to the United States.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon the record of this new shipper review, the Department
preliminarily determines that Golden Dragon is the producer and
exporter of subject merchandise and, therefore, is entitled to this new
shipper review.
Bona Fides Analysis
We preliminarily determine that these sales are bona fide. In
considering the record of this review we find that there are a
significant number of U.S. sales made to unaffiliated parties; these
sales were made during and after the period of this review. In
addition, there is no information indicating that sales are not
commercially reasonable. See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1249 (CIT 2005). Because the
information is business proprietary, see ``Bona Fides Analysis
Memorandum'' dated April 23, 2012, for a detailed discussion. We will
consider this matter further for the final results.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) for this new shipper review is November
22, 2010, through April 30, 2011.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Golden Dragon's sales of subject merchandise
from Mexico were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared
the monthly, weighted-average constructed export price (CEP) to the
monthly, weighted-average NV, as described in
[[Page 25138]]
the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d), we compared CEP to the NV of
the foreign like product in the appropriate corresponding calendar
month.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for
Reviews). In particular, the Department compared monthly weighted-
average export prices (or CEPs) with monthly weighted-average NVs
and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of
the weighted-average dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Comparisons
Pursuant to section 771(16)(A) of the Act, for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to the U.S. sales, the
Department considers all products, as described in the ``Scope of the
Order'' section of this notice above, that were sold in the comparison
or third-country market in the ordinary course of trade. In accordance
with sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, where there are no sales
of identical merchandise in the comparison or third-country market made
in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the
most similar foreign like product based on the characteristics listed
in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire: (1) Type and ASTM
specification; (2) copper alloy unified number system; (3) outer
diameter; (4) wall thickness; (5) physical form; (6) temper
designation; (7) bore; (8) outer surface; and (9) attachments. We found
that Golden Dragon had sales of foreign like product that were
identical or similar in these respects to the merchandise sold in the
United States, and therefore compared the U.S. product with identical
or similar merchandise sold in the home market, based on the
characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.
Date of Sale
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department will normally use the
date of invoice as the date of sale, unless a different date better
reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established.
In its response to the Department's questionnaire, Golden Dragon
reported the invoice date as the date of sale in both markets. However,
in section A of Golden Dragon's response, Golden Dragon reported that
the quantity of each transaction is not fixed until the shipment is
made. In the case of consignment sales, when the product is withdrawn
by a customer, the invoice date is the appropriate date of sale. See
Golden Dragon's Section A response, dated August 22, 2011, at A-17.
Golden Dragon also asserted that the Department should compare U.S.
sales to home market sales with the same metal exchange and date,
because the invoice date alone is not an appropriate basis to determine
the transaction dates to be used in the dumping margin calculations.
Golden Dragon argues that the price of copper can fluctuate sharply on
a daily basis. See id. See also Golden Dragon's Section B response,
dated August 22, 2011, at B-19-21. However, as noted below, we do not
find that this case warrants special treatment of costs which warrants
comparison of U.S. sales to home market sales by invoice date and the
same metal exchange date. Accordingly, we preliminarily find invoice
date to be the appropriate date of sale with respect to Golden Dragon's
sales to the U.S. and home market. However, during the POR, shipment
occurred prior to invoice date for certain sales. Therefore, consistent
with the Department's practice, we used the shipment date as the date
of sale where the shipment date occurs before the invoice date because
the quantity is fixed at the time of shipment. See Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 18074, 18079-80 (April 10, 2006), unchanged in Stainless
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; Final
Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in
Part, 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 2007), and the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5.
U.S. Price
Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United
States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of
the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated
with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the
producer or exporter,'' as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of
the Act. For purposes of this new shipper review, Golden Dragon
classified its U.S. sales as CEP sales because Golden Dragon's U.S.
affiliate is responsible for the sale to the unaffiliated customer.
Since Golden Dragon's U.S. affiliate is responsible for the sale to the
unaffiliated customer in the United States, we are treating Golden
Dragon's U.S. sales as CEP sales. We calculated CEP using the price
Golden Dragon charged its unaffiliated customer. We made deductions and
adjustments, where appropriate, from the starting price for
international freight, inland insurance, U.S. warehouse expenses, U.S.
brokerage and handling expenses, credit expenses, inventory carrying
costs incurred in the United States, and other indirect selling
expenses in the United States associated with economic activity in the
United States. See sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP
profit.
Information about the specific adjustments and our analysis of the
adjustments is business proprietary, and is detailed in the Memorandum
to The File, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, from Dennis
McClure, International Trade Analyst, Analysis Memorandum for Golden
Dragon Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and
Tube from Mexico, dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum).
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared the volume of Golden Dragon's home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of its U.S. sale of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Based on this
comparison, we determined that Golden Dragon had sufficient sales in
the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV during
the POR. See Golden Dragon's Section A response, dated August 22, 2011,
at Exhibit A-1.
B. Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or CEP
sales in the U.S. market. For further discussion of our LOT analysis,
see Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
After analyzing the information on the record with respect to the
following selling activities: (1) Sales Forecasting;
[[Page 25139]]
(2) Strategic/Economic Planning; (3) Engineering Services; (4)
Advertising; (5) Sales Promotion; (6) Packing; (7) Inventory
Maintenance; (8) Order Input/Processing; (9) Direct Sales Personnel;
(10) Sales/Marketing Support; (11) Technical Assistance; (12) Manage
Cash Discounts; (13) Pay Commissions; (14) Provide After-Sales
Services; (15) Arrange Freight and Delivery; and (16) Negotiate, Order,
and Collect Payment, we preliminarily find that all reported sales are
made at the same LOT. For a further discussion of LOT, see ``Level of
Trade Analysis'' section in the Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A) of the Act, to initiate a
cost of production (COP) investigation the Department must have
``reasonable grounds'' to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign
like product under consideration for the determination of NV have been
made at prices below the COP of that product. An allegation will be
deemed to have provided reasonable grounds if: (1) A reasonable
methodology is used in the calculation of the COP including the use of
the respondent's actual data, if available; (2) using this methodology,
sales are shown to be made at prices below the COP; and (3) the sales
allegedly made at below cost are representative of a broader range of
foreign models which may be used as a basis for NV. See section
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act and Notice of Preliminary Results of the New
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 48668,
48670 (August 19, 2005), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of New
Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 62297
(October 31, 2005). The Department found that pursuant to
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, the petitioners provided, in their
September 6, 2011, sales-below-cost allegation, a reasonable basis to
believe or suspect that Golden Dragon was selling seamless refined
copper pipe and tube at below the COP in the home market. See
Memorandum to Melissa Skinner from the Team, The Domestic Producers'
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for GD Affiliates S.
de R.L. de C.V., Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc., and GD
Copper (U.S.A.), dated October 6, 2011. As a result, the Department
initiated an investigation to determine whether Golden Dragon made home
market sales during the POR at prices below COP.
Volatility in Raw Materials
Golden Dragon alleges that the volatility in daily commodity metal
prices poses unique issues that the Department's traditional
antidumping methodology does not adequately address.\7\ Golden Dragon
asserts that because it has shown that the company goes to great
lengths in the normal course of business to eliminate all risk
associated with metal fluctuations, the Department should rely on
Golden Dragon's reported day-specific \8\ metal costs, rather than POR
weighted-average metal costs for purposes of its margin analysis,
consistent with the Department's practice (see Brass Sheet and Strip
from Germany: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 66347 (October 28, 2010) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (Brass Sheet and Strip)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Golden Dragon's August 29, 2011 submission at A-
18.
\8\ Day-specific costs reported by Golden Dragon include metal
costs specific to a particular day, a week-long average, a monthly
average, or an average of months. See, e.g., Golden Dragon's April
6, 2012 submission at exhibit 1, data field ``METALDTH.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Dragon claims that because of the risks associated with
fluctuating copper prices, the company has developed a business
practice where Golden Dragon and its customers agree to fix the copper
price component of the sales of seamless copper pipe and tube based on
published prices from a global commodity futures exchange, such as the
London Metals Exchange (LME).\9\ The prices that Golden Dragon
subsequently invoices its customers are comprised of two components,
the agreed upon fixed metal price and a fabrication charge, both of
which are listed separately on the invoice for each sales
transaction.\10\ Golden Dragon claims that this business model, and the
company's metal hedging mechanism,\11\ allows Golden Dragon to shift
the entire risk of fluctuating metal prices to its customers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Golden Dragon's Section A response, dated August 22,
2011, at A-17.
\10\ See, e.g., Golden Dragon's January 18, 2012 submission at
exhibit SSD-5.
\11\ See Golden Dragon's January 18, 2012 submission at 8 for a
description of the hedging mechanism.
\12\ See Golden Dragon's Section D response, dated August 29,
2011, at D-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Brass Sheet and Strip, the Department found that the respondent
obtained metal neutrality as a result of its business practice of
purchasing the same quantity of metal at the same metal price (e.g.,
LME price) for the same day (``metal fixation day'') as the sale price
of the metal agreed to with its customer (i.e., metal price reflected
on the respondent's sales invoice to the customer). In those instances
where the purchase quantity and sales quantity of metal differed on a
given day (metal fixation date), the difference in quantity was hedged.
Because the Department found that the respondent's sales and purchases
were specifically linked on a daily basis through back-to-back physical
purchases or hedging transactions in Brass Sheet and Strip, the
Department determined that the reliance on the respondent's reported
day-specific metal costs was warranted. As such, the Department
departed from its normal practice of calculating a weighted-average POR
metal cost and relied instead on the reported day-specific metal costs.
In the instant case, Golden Dragon claims that Hong Kong GD Trading
Co., Ltd.'s metal purchasing and hedging mechanism is identical to the
Brass Sheet and Strip respondent's metal purchasing and hedging
practices. As such, the Golden Dragon asserts that the Department
should rely on Golden Dragon's reported day-specific metal costs
consistent with Brass Sheet and Strip. We disagree. The record evidence
submitted by Golden Dragon does not show that the quantities of metal
reported for specific metal fixation dates for Golden Dragon's sales to
customers in Mexico and the United States were specifically linked on a
daily basis through back-to-back physical purchases or hedging
transactions. For example, for home market and U.S. sales \13\ with
metal fixation dates occurring on specific days within December 2010,
we were unable to reconcile the sales quantities to the purchasing and
hedging transaction information submitted by Golden Dragon for the
month of December 2010.\14\ Because the record evidence in this case
fails to demonstrate that Golden Dragon is able to maintain complete
metal cost neutrality, similar to the respondent in Brass Sheet and
Strip, we preliminarily find that the reliance on a daily metal cost
methodology is not warranted. Therefore, we have relied on our normal
practice of calculating a POR weighted-average cost of metal for our
preliminary analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See data file accompanying Golden Dragon's April 6, 2012
submission titled ``GDCOPHM04'' and data file accompanying Golden
Dragon's February 21, 2012 submission titled ``GDCOPUS02,''
respectively.
\14\ See, e.g., Golden Dragon's February 21, 2012 submission at
exhibits 3SD-3, 3SD-4, 3SD-5, and 3SD-6.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25140]]
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated
Golden Dragon's COP based on the sum of materials and conversion for
the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative
expenses and interest expenses (see ``Test of Comparison Market Sales
Prices'' section, below, for treatment of home market selling
expenses). We revised Golden Dragon's reported metal costs to reflect
the weighted-average metal consumption cost for the POR. We
recalculated the per-unit cost of services provided to GD Affiliates by
Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd., and Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong)
International, Ltd. by applying the reported services ratio to the per-
unit total cost of manufacturing rather than the per-unit direct
material costs as reported by Golden Dragon. Details regarding the
calculation of COP, including adjustments made to the COP reported by
Golden Dragon, as well as other calculation details can be found in the
Golden Dragon Preliminary Cost Memorandum. See Cost of Production and
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--
G.D. Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V., Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube
Group, Inc., and GD Copper (USA) from LaVonne Clark to Neal Halper,
dated concurrently with this notice.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
On a product-specific basis, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home
market sales prices of the foreign like product, in order to determine
whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this
comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The
prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts, direct and
indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act whether: (1) within an extended period
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such
sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In
accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, where less
than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given
product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-
cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances
the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time
and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP,
we disregard the below-cost sales when: (1) they were made within an
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act.
We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Golden
Dragon's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in
addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used
the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV for Golden Dragon on the reported packed,
delivered prices, FOB plant, or delivered to the customer's warehouse
and sold on a consignment basis to comparison market customers. We made
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for billing
adjustments, early payment discounts, credit expenses, and inland
freight, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
We added U.S. packing costs and deducted home market packing costs,
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act. We also
made adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect
selling expenses incurred in the home market or the United States where
commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other,
the ``commission offset.'' Specifically, where commissions are incurred
in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such
allowance to the amount of either the indirect selling expenses
incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other
market, whichever is less.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR
351.411(b).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415(a) based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily find, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), that the following weighted-average dumping
percentage margin exists for Golden Dragon for the period November 22,
2010, through April 30, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Dragon............................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rate
Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions for Golden Dragon directly to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of the final results of this new
shipper review.
If Golden Dragon's weighted-average dumping margin is above de
minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate an
importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's
examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\15\ We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results
of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we intend to instruct CBP to
liquidate
[[Page 25141]]
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
assessment rate calculation method adopted in Final Modification for
Reviews, i.e. on the basis of monthly average-to-average comparisons
using only the transactions associated with that importer with
offsets being provided for non-dumped comparisons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this new shipper review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for subject
merchandise that is manufactured by Golden Dragon and exported by
Golden Dragon established in the final results of this new shipper
review, except no cash deposit will be required if its weighted-average
dumping margin is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a
previous review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the
original 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) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers and/or exporters of this merchandise, shall be
26.03 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico
and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders and Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value From Mexico, 75 FR
71070 (November 22, 2010). These requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Further, effective upon publication of the final results, we intend
to instruct CBP that importers may no longer post a bond or other
security in lieu of a cash deposit on imports of seamless refined
copper pipe and tube from Mexico, manufactured by Golden Dragon and
exported by Golden Dragon. These cash deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of public announcement. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Unless notified by
the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties
may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the
deadline for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Additionally,
parties are requested to provide their case briefs and rebuttal briefs
in electronic format (e.g., WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat,
etc.).
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's
name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and
(3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will
be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
The Department will issue the final results of this review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written
briefs, within 90 days of signature of these preliminary results,
unless the final results are extended. See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of
the Act.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This new shipper review is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as well as 19 CFR
351.214(i).
Dated: April 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-10241 Filed 4-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
