Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Rescission in Part and Intent To Rescind in Part, 34013-34020 [2012-13972]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
International Trade Administration
this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’).
[A–570–943]
DATES:
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Rescission in Part and Intent
To Rescind in Part
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting the first administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on oil country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period May 19,
2010, through April 30, 2011.1
We have preliminarily determined
that Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu Chengde’’), Taizhou
Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (‘‘Taizhou
Chengde’’), and Yangzhou Chengde
Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yangzhou
Chengde’’) (collectively ‘‘the Chengde
Group’’) are a single entity for purposes
of this administrative review 2 and that
the Chengde Group made sales of
subject merchandise in the United
States at prices below normal value
(‘‘NV’’) during the period of review
(‘‘POR’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the POR. The Department is rescinding
this administrative review, in part, for
18 respondents with existing separate
rate status for which the request for
review has been timely withdrawn.
Further, the Department preliminarily
intends to rescind this administrative
review, in part, for 33 additional
respondents who do not have separate
rate status for which the request for
review has been timely withdrawn.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a summary of the argument. We intend
to issue the final results no later than
120 days from the date of publication of
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 24460
(May 2, 2011).
2 See below Affiliation section; see also the
Department’s memorandum titled ‘‘Jiangsu Chengde
Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd.—Affiliations and
Collapsing,’’ dated concurrent with this notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
34013
On May 21, 2010, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on OCTG from
the PRC.3 On May 2, 2011, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on OCTG from
the PRC. On May 26, 2011, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),
Jiangsu Chengde, a foreign producer and
exporter of the subject merchandise,
requested that the Department review its
sales of subject merchandise during the
POR.4 On May 31, 2011, United States
Steel Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’) 5
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of the exports
of subject merchandise made by 53
exporters/producers during the POR.6
On June 28, 2011, the Department
initiated an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on OCTG from
the PRC for the POR with regard to the
53 named exporters/producers.7 On
September 19, 2011, the Department
selected Jiangsu Chengde and Faray
Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Faray’’)
as mandatory respondents in this
review.8 During July and August 2011,
four companies submitted separate rate
certifications (including Jiangsu
Chengde) and two companies submitted
separate rate applications.9
On September 19, 2011 the
Department issued its antidumping duty
questionnaire to Jiangsu Chengde and
Faray. On September 23, 2011, U.S.
Steel withdrew its request for review for
all parties named in the Initiation Notice
except Jiangsu Chengde.10 The
Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Jiangsu Chengde on
December 12, 2011, February 15, 2012,
and April 10, 2012. On February 16,
2012, U.S. Steel submitted comments on
Jiangsu Chengde’s initial questionnaire
response and its response to the
December 12, 2011 supplemental
questionnaire.
On November 10, 2011, the
Department requested that Import
Administration’s Office of Policy
provide a list of surrogate countries for
this review.11 On November 28, 2011,
the Office of Policy issued its list of
surrogate countries.12 On December 5,
2011, the Department issued a letter to
interested parties seeking comments on
surrogate country selection and
surrogate values (‘‘SVs’’).13 On
December 19, 2011, TMK IPSCO,
Wheatland Tube Company, V&M Star,
Maverick Tube Corporation
(‘‘Maverick’’) and U.S. Steel provided
surrogate country selection comments.
On January 18, 2012, these parties also
provided surrogate value comments. No
interested party submitted rebuttal
comments with respect to surrogate
country selection or SVs.
On January 19, 2012, the Department
extended the time period for completion
of the preliminary results of this review
3 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From
the People’s Republic of China: Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 28551 (May 21,
2010) (‘‘Order’’).
4 See Letter from Jiangsu Chengde, ‘‘Oil Country
Tubular Goods from China; Request for
Administrative Review,’’ dated May 26, 2011.
5 The petitioners in the investigation consisted of
eight parties. Not all eight parties have entered an
appearance in this review. TMK IPSCO, Wheatland
Tube Company, V&M Star; and Maverick Tube
Corporation (‘‘Maverick’’) are interested parties.
Only U.S. Steel requested this administrative
review.
6 See Letter from U.S. Steel, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular
Goods from the People’s Republic of China; Request
for Administrative Review,’’ dated May 31, 2011.
7 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR
37781 (June 28, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). See also
‘‘Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part, 76 FR 53404 (August 26, 2011)
in which the POR was corrected from November 17,
2009 through April 30, 2011 to May 19, 2010
through April 30, 2011.
8 See the memorandum ‘‘Selection of Mandatory
Respondents’’ dated September 19, 2011.
9 The two companies that submitted separate rate
applications also received separate rate status in
OCTG’s less than fair value investigation.
10 See Letter from the U.S. Steel ‘‘Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic
of China: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative
Review,’’ dated September 23, 2011.
11 See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director,
Office of Policy, ‘‘Administrative Review of Oil
Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic
of China: Selection of Surrogate Countries,’’ dated
November 10, 2011.
12 See Memorandum from Carole Showers,
Director, Office of Policy, ‘‘Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country
Tubular Goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘China’’),’’ dated November 28,
2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
13 See Letter to Interested Parties, ‘‘First
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from the
People’s Republic of China: Request for Comments
on the Selection of a Surrogate Country and
Surrogate Values,’’ dated December 5, 2011.
Effective Date: June 8, 2012.
Paul
Stolz or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4474, and (202)
482–0414, respectively.
Background
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
34014
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
by 90 days until April 30, 2012.14 On
April 24, 2012, the Department
extended the time period for completing
the preliminary results of review by an
additional 30 days until May 30, 2012.15
Period of Review
The POR is May 19, 2010, through
April 30, 2011.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
consists of certain OCTG, which are
hollow steel products of circular crosssection, including oil well casing and
tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or
steel (both carbon and alloy), whether
seamless or welded, regardless of end
finish (e.g., whether or not plain end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled)
whether or not conforming to American
Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) or non-API
specifications, whether finished
(including limited service OCTG
products) or unfinished (including
green tubes and limited service OCTG
products), whether or not thread
protectors are attached. The
merchandise covered by the order also
covers OCTG coupling stock. Excluded
from the order are casing or tubing
containing 10.5 percent or more by
weight of chromium; drill pipe;
unattached couplings; and unattached
thread protectors.
The merchandise covered by the order
is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item
numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20,
7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40,
7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60,
7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10,
7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30,
7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50,
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80,
7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20,
7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40,
7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60,
7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10,
7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30,
7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50,
7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80,
7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30,
7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60,
7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15,
7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45,
7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75,
7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00,
14 See Oil Country Tubular Goods From the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time for
the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 2700 (January 19,
2012).
15 See Oil Country Tubular Goods From the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time for
the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 24464 (April 24,
2012).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90,
7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00,
7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10,
7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and
7306.29.81.50.
The OCTG coupling stock covered by
the order may also enter under the
following HTSUS item numbers:
7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28,
7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36,
7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44,
7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52,
7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62,
7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72,
7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80,
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15,
7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25,
7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35,
7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45,
7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55,
7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65,
7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes
only, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Rescission of Review in Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if a party
that requested the review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of
the requested review. For all but one of
the 53 companies for which the
Department initiated an administrative
review, U.S. Steel was the only party
that requested the review. On
September 23, 2011, U.S. Steel timely
withdrew its review requests for 52 of
the 53 companies for which the U.S.
Steel was the only party that had
requested an administrative review.
For those companies named in the
Initiation Notice that received separate
rate status in the Final Determination
other than Jiangsu Chengde, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1),
we are rescinding this administrative
review. These companies are: (1) Anhui
Tianda Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.; (2) Benxi
Northern Steel Pipes Co., Ltd.; (3) Faray
Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (4) Freet
Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. of
Shengli Oil Field, The Thermal
Recovery Equipment, Zibo Branch; (5)
Hengyang Steel Tube Group Int’l
Trading Inc.; (6) Jiangyin City
Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (7)
Shandong Dongbao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.;
(8) Shandong Molong Petroleum
Machinery Co., Ltd.; (9) Shengli Oil
Field Freet Petroleum Equipment Co.,
Ltd.; (10) Shengli Oil Field Freet
Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (11)
Shengli Oil Field Highland Petroleum
Equipment Co., Ltd.; (12) Tianjin Pipe
International Economic & Trading Corp.;
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(13) Tianjin Tiangang Special Petroleum
Pipe Manufacturer Co., Ltd.; (14) Wuxi
Baoda Petroleum Special Pipe
Manufacture Co., Ltd.; (15) Wuxi
Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.; (16) Wuxi
Zhenda Special Steel Tube
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (17) Xigang
Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; and (18)
Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd.
Intent To Rescind the Review in Part
Petitioner’s timely request for an
administrative review included a
request to conduct an administrative
review of multiple companies that do
not have separate rates. As described
above, the U.S. Steel withdrew its
review request covering these
companies. Because these companies
have not established their eligibility for
a separate rate, these companies will
continue to be considered part of the
PRC-wide entity. Although the PRCwide entity is not under review for these
preliminary results, the possibility
exists that the PRC-wide entity could be
under review for the final results of this
administrative review. Therefore, we are
not rescinding this review with respect
to these companies at this time but we
intend to rescind this review with
respect to the following companies in
the final results if the PRC-wide entity
is not reviewed: (1) Baoshan Iron & Steel
Co., Inc.; (2) Baosteel Group; (3)
Cangzhou Huaye Metal Products Co.,
Ltd.; (4) Cangzhou Qiancheng Steel Pipe
Co.; (5) Freet Petroleum Equipment
Group Co., Ltd.; (6) Guangzhou Juyi
Steel Pipes Co., Ltd.; (7) Hebei
Machinery Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (8)
Hebei Zhongyuan Steel Pipe
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (9) Hefei Zijin
Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (10)
Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd.;
(11) Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co.,
Ltd.; (12) Huai’an Zhenda Steel Tube
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (13) Huludao
Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.; (14)
Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,
Ltd.; (15) Jiangsu Changbao Precision
Tube Co., Ltd.; (16) Jiangsu Changbao
Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; (17) Jiangsu Yulong
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (18) Jiangyin
Chuangzin Oil Pipe; (19) Jiangyin City
Seamless Steel Tube Factory; (20) Jinan
Meide Casting Co., Ltd.; (21) Northern
Tool Equipment Co., Ltd.; (22)
Shandong Molong Group Co.; (23)
Shengli Oil Field Freet Import & Export
Co., Ltd.; (24) Thermal Recovery
Equipment Manufacturer of Shengli Oil
Field Freet Petroleum Equipment Co.;
Ltd., (25) Tianjin Pipe Group Co., Ltd.;
(26) Tianjin Shuangjie Pipe
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (27) Wuxi
Fastube Industry Co.; (28) Wuxi Huayou
Special Steel Co., Ltd.; (29) Wuxi
Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd.; (30)
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
Xi’An Meixinte Industrial & Trading
Co., Ltd.; 16 (31)Yantai Yuanhua Steel
Tubes Co., Ltd.; (32) ZhangJiaGang
ZhongYuan Pipe-Making Co.; and (33)
Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd.
Review of Yangzhou Chengde
U.S. Steel requested a review of
Yangzhou Chengde and subsequently
withdrew its review request with
respect to this company. However, as
described above and in the affiliationcollapsing memorandum,17 the
Department has collapsed Yangzhou
Chengde, Jiangsu Chengde, and Taizhou
Chengde into a single entity for
purposes of this administrative review.
Therefore, Yangzhou Chengde continues
to be subject to review in this segment
of the proceeding as part of the Chengde
Group.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No interested party contested the
Department’s treatment of the PRC as a
non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) country
in this administrative review, and the
Department has treated the PRC as an
NME country in all past antidumping
duty investigations and administrative
reviews.18 Designation as an NME
country remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department.19 As such,
we continue to treat the PRC as an NME
in this proceeding.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an
administrative review of imports from
an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the
Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer’s
factors of production (‘‘FOP’’), valued in
a surrogate market economy (‘‘ME’’)
country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the
Act, in valuing the FOPs, the
Department shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more ME countries that are: (A)
at a level of economic development
16 Yangzhou Chengde was covered by the
initiation notice and did not receive a separate rate
in the less-than-fair-value, however it is being
collapsed with Jiangsu Chengde, the mandatory
respondent in this review.
17 See the Department’s memorandum titled
‘‘Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd.—
Affiliations and Collapsing’’ (‘‘Affiliation/
Collapsing Memo’’) dated concurrently with the
date of signature of this notice.
18 See e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
19 See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
comparable to that of the NME country;
and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.20 The sources
of the SVs are discussed under the
‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below and
in the Factor Valuation Memorandum,21
which is on file in the Central Records
Unit, Room 7046 of the main
Department building.
In examining which country to select
as its primary surrogate country for this
proceeding, the Department first
determined that Colombia, Indonesia,
Peru, the Philippines, South Africa,
Thailand, and Ukraine are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development.22 Once the
Department has identified countries that
are economically comparable to the
PRC, it identifies those countries which
are significant producers of comparable
merchandise.
TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube
Company, and V&M Star submitted a
letter stating that Indonesia is an
appropriate surrogate country because:
(1) Indonesia is at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC; (2)
Indonesia is a significant producer of
identical and comparable merchandise;
and (3) the government of Indonesia has
published publicly available import
data covering the entire POR from
which values for the major FOPs may be
derived.23
U.S. Steel submitted a letter stating
that Indonesia is the appropriate
surrogate country because: (1) Indonesia
is at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC; (2) Indonesia is
a significant producer of comparable
merchandise; (3) Indonesia data meets
the Department’s criteria: the data
allows the Department to calculate SVs
using period-wide average prices that
are publicly available, specific to the
inputs in question, net of taxes and
import duties, and contemporaneous
with the POR.24 In addition, U.S. Steel
states that the Department determined
in the investigation that Indonesian
import data provided the best available
information to value the ‘‘most
important input in the production of
20 See Import Administration Policy Bulletin
04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country
Selection Process (March 1, 2004).
21 See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
22 See Surrogate Country List.
23 See Letter from TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube
Company, and V&M Star, ‘‘Oil Country Tubular
Goods from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
December 19, 2011.
24 See Letter from U.S. Steel, ‘‘Oil Country
Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated January 6, 2012
(‘‘U.S. Steel’s SV Letter’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34015
OCTG, steel billets.’’ 25 Moreover, U.S.
Steel contends that financial statements
will show that that surrogate financial
ratios can be calculated using
Indonesian financial statements that
provide ample, contemporaneous
financial data from producers of tubular
products with physical characteristics,
end uses, and production processes
similar to those of OCTG. In addition,
U.S. Steel contends that the Department
has recognized that the financial data
available for Indonesia ‘‘provide
sufficient detail’’ to calculate surrogate
financial ratios.26
Maverick submitted a letter
incorporating by reference the December
19, 2011, comments made by TMK
IPSCO, Wheatland Tube Company, and
V&M Star stating that Indonesia is an
appropriate surrogate country. Maverick
states that in the Final Determination,
India was the primary surrogate country
but India is no longer designated on the
Surrogate Country List for the PRC. In
addition, Maverick states that in the
Final Determination the Department
selected Indonesia as the source of the
data used to calculate the SV for steel
billets, which it claims comprises the
vast majority of the cost of production
of OCTG. Maverick contends that by
doing so, the Department, for all
practical purposes, indicated that
Indonesia was the appropriate source of
SVs for all primary material inputs.27
After evaluating interested parties’
comments, the Department has
determined that Indonesia is the
appropriate surrogate country to use in
this review in accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, based on the
following: (1) Indonesia is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC;28 (2) Indonesia, in terms
of total value of net exports, is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise;29 and (3) Indonesian
SVsare available to value all of the
FOPsreported by the Chengde Group,
and in accordance with the
Department’s preference, this data
represent non-export average values and
are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.
25 U.S. Steel cites the Final Determination, and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 20.
26 U.S. Steel cites Citric Acid and Certain Citrate
Salts From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 74 FR 16838 (April 13, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at
comment 1.
27 See Letter from Maverick, ‘‘Oil Country
Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China:
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated
January 6, 2012.
28 See Surrogate Country List.
29 See U.S. Steel’ SV Letter.
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
34016
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
Therefore, because Indonesia represents
the experience of producers of
comparable merchandise operating in a
surrogate country, and provides the
best, and only, available information on
the record of this review, we have
selected Indonesia as the surrogate
country. Accordingly, we have
calculated NV using Indonesian import
data to value Chengde’s FOPs. We have
obtained and relied upon publicly
available information to value all FOPs
and factory overhead, sales general and
administrative expenses, and profit
ratios.30 In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
value the FOPs within 20 days after the
date of publication of the preliminary
results of review.31
Affiliation
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Based on the evidence presented in
Jiangsu Chengde’s questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find that
Jiangsu Chengde is affiliated with
Yangzhou Chengde and Taizhou
Chengde, both of which are capable of
producing subject merchandise,
pursuant to sections 771(33)(F) of the
Act. In addition, based on the
information presented in Jiangsu
Chengde’s questionnaire responses, we
preliminarily find that Jiangsu Chengde,
Taizhou Chengde, and Yangzhou
Chengde, should be collapsed for the
purposes of this administrative review.
This finding is based on the
determination that: (1) Jiangsu Chengde,
Yangzhou Chengde, and Taizhou
Chengde are affiliated; (2) Jiangsu
Chengde is a producer of subject
merchandise; (3) Yangzhou Chengde,
and Taizhou Chengde are capable of
producing merchandise under
consideration and no retooling would be
necessary in order to restructure
manufacturing priorities; and (4) there is
significant potential for manipulation of
30 Other than with respect to ocean freight,
Chengde Group did not report any MEpurchase
prices for its reported FOPs.
31 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final determination of this review, interested
parties may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by
an interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes
that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information
only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects
information recently placed on the record. The
Department generally cannot accept the submission
of additional, previously absent-from-the-record
alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission,
in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
price or production among the parties.32
For further discussion, see the
Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
Separate Rates
A designation of a country as an NME
remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department.33 In proceedings
involving NME countries, the
Department has a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assessed a
single weighted-average dumping
margin.34
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
application and certification process by
which exporters may obtain separate
rate status in NME proceedings.35 It is
the Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise in an
NME country a single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further
developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in a ME, then a separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
government control.36
Separate Rate Applicants—Withdrawn
Request for Review
Three companies other than the
Chengde Group submitted separate rate
certifications and two companies
submitted separate rate applications.
32 See
19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
34 See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006) (‘‘Lined Paper from
the PRC’’); see also Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
35 See Initiation Notice.
36 See e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
33 See
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
However, because U.S. Steel withdrew
its request for review of these
companies and no other company
requested a review of them, their
separate rate certifications/applications
have not been considered for purposes
of this administrative review.
Separate Rate Recipients
Jiangsu Chengde reported that it is a
wholly Chinese-owned company.37
Therefore, the Department must analyze
whether it can demonstrate the absence
of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over its export
activities. Evidence on the record shows
that Taizhou Chengde is also a wholly
Chinese-owned company. Yangzhou
Chengde is a joint venture with Chinese
and Hong Kong ownership. Taizhou
Chengde and Yangzhou Chengde are not
individually eligible for separate rate
consideration in this review because
evidence on the record indicates they
had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. However,
for these preliminary results, the
Department determines that the
Chengde Group, comprised of Jiangsu
Chengde, Taizhou Chengde, and
Yangzhou Chengde is eligible for
separate rate status.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.38
The evidence provided by the
Chengde Group supports a preliminary
finding of the absence of de jure
governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with their
businesses and export licenses; (2)
applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies;
and (3) formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
companies.39
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
37 See Jiangsu Chengde’s section A questionnaire
response (‘‘AQR’’), dated October 20, 2011 at page
A–2.
38 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
39 See Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic
of China, contained in Jiangsu Chengde’s AQR, at
Exhibit A–5 and Company Law of the People’s
Republic of China at Exhibit A–4.
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
(‘‘EP’’) are set by or are subject to the
approval of a government agency; (2)
whether the respondent has authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.40 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of governmental control,
which would preclude the Department
from assigning separate rates.
The evidence provided by the
Chengde Group supports a preliminary
finding of the absence of de facto of
government control based on the
following: (1) The absence of evidence
that the EPs are set by or are subject to
the approval of a government agency; 41
(2) the respondents have authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; 42 (3) the respondents have
autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; 43 and (4) the
respondents retain the proceeds of their
export sales and make independent
decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses.44
Therefore, the evidence placed on the
record of this review by the Chengde
Group demonstrates an absence of de
jure and de facto government control
with respect to the Chengde Group’s
exports of the merchandise under
review, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide. Accordingly, we have
determined that Jiangsu Chengde has
demonstrated its eligibility for a
separate rate.45
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of OCTG
to the United States by the Chengde
40 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s
Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8,
1995).
41 See Jiangsu Chengde’s AQR, at A–7—A–8 and
Exhibit A–9.
42 Id.
43 See Jiangsu Chengde’s AQR, at A–9—A–10 and
Exhibit A–3.
44 See Jiangsu Chengde’s AQR at A–11.
45 Yangzhou Chengde and Taizhou Chengde,
which are part of the collapsed entity, are not
eligible for separate rates because they had no
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
Group were made at less than NV, the
Department compared EP to NV, as
described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
In these preliminary results, the
Department applied the weightedaverage dumping margin calculation
method adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification.46 In particular, the
Department compared monthly
weighted-average EPs with monthly
weighted-average normal values and
granted offsets for non-dumped
comparisons in the calculation of the
weighted-average dumping margin.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we used EP for all sales
reported by the Chengde Group. We
calculated EP based on the packed
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or
for exportation to, the United States. We
made deductions, as appropriate, for
any movement expenses (e.g., foreign
inland freight from the plant to the port
of exportation, domestic brokerage,
international freight to the port of
importation, etc.) in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where
foreign inland freight or foreign
brokerage and handling fees were
provided by PRC service providers or
paid for in renminbi, we based those
charges on surrogate value rates from
Indonesia. See ‘‘Factor Valuation’’
section below for further discussion of
surrogate value rates.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to
value FOPs, but when a producer
sources an input from a ME and pays for
it in ME currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price
paid for the input.47 The Chengde
Group reported that it purchased
international freight services from ME
suppliers for transportation of the
subject merchandise to the United
States and paid for it in a market
economy currency.48 However, the
46 See
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’’).
47 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof
Assembly Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc.
v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382–1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department’s use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
48 See Jiangsu Chengde’s section C questionnaire
response at page C–24 and Exhibit C–4.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34017
Chengde Group in fact purchased its
ocean freight from a NME provider who
contracted from an ME freight provider.
Therefore, because the Chengde Group
purchased the ocean freight services
from a NME supplier, for these
preliminary results we are valuing
ocean freight using an SV.49
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using a factors of production
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME country and the
Department finds that the available
information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. When determining NV in an
NME context, the Department will base
NV on FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. The
Department’s questionnaire requires
that the Chengde Group provide
information regarding the weightedaverage FOPs across all of the
company’s plants and/or suppliers that
produce the merchandise under
consideration, not just the FOPs from a
single plant or supplier. This
methodology ensures that the
Department’s calculations are as
accurate as possible.50
We calculated NV based on FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
The FOPs include but are not limited to:
(1) Hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed;
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities
consumed; and (4) representative capital
costs. The Department used FOPs
reported by the Chengde Group for
direct materials, energy, labor, and
packing materials.
The Chengde Group reported that it
generates steel scrap during the
production process of merchandise
under consideration and requested an
49 See Jiangsu Chengde’s supplemental
questionnaire response dated May 2, 2012 at 3 and
Exhibits S3–4, S3–5 and S3–6. See also Certain
Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68148
(November 3, 2011).
50 See e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances:
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October
28, 2003), and accompanying Issue and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 19.
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
34018
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
offset for this scrap.51 However, the
Department’s policy is to grant scrap
offsets for scrap produced, not sold,
during the POR.52 The Chengde Group
reported that it does not track scrap
when it is produced but collects scrap
and weighs it when it is sold.53 Because
the Chengde Group has not established
that the steel scrap it sold during the
POR was produced during the POR, for
the preliminary results, the Department
has determined that the Chengde Group
is not entitled to a byproduct offset for
steel scrap in its margin calculation.
Factor Valuations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, the Department calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by the Chengde
Group for the POR. To calculate NV, the
Department multiplied the reported perunit factor consumption quantities by
publicly available Indonesian SVs. In
selecting the SVs, the Department
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. The
Department adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices, as appropriate.
Specifically, the Department added to
Indonesian import surrogate values an
Indonesian surrogate freight cost using
the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the nearest seaport to
the factory. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117
F.3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A
detailed description of all SVs used to
value the Chengde Group’s reported
FOPs may be found in the Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, except where noted below, we
used data from Indonesian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas
(‘‘GTA’’) and other publicly available
Indonesian sources in order to calculate
SVs for the Chengde Group’s FOPs (i.e.,
direct materials, energy, and packing
materials) and certain movement
expenses. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable, SVs
51 See Jiangsu Chengde’s section D questionnaire
response at pages D–14—D–15.
52 See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of the 2007–2008 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 8301 (February 24,
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision
memorandum at Comment 10.
53 See Jiangsu Chengde’s section D questionnaire
response at pages D–14—D–15.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
which are non-export average values,
most contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.54
The record shows that data in the
Indonesian import statistics, as well as
those from the other Indonesian sources,
are contemporaneous with the POR,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.55 In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the
Indonesian Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’)
inflators/deflators as published in the
International Monetary Fund’s
International Financial Statistics.56
Furthermore, with regard to
Indonesian import-based SVs, we have
disregarded prices that we have reason
to believe or suspect may be subsidized,
such as those from South Korea, India,
and Thailand. We have found in other
proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all
exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.57 We are
also guided by the statute’s legislative
history that explains that it is not
necessary to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices
are not subsidized.58 Rather, the
Department was instructed by Congress
to base its decision on information that
is available to it at the time it is making
its determination. In accordance with
the foregoing, we have not used prices
54 See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682
(July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8,
2004).
55 See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
56 See Factor Valuation Memorandum. See also,
e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 9591,
9600 (March 5, 2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks Prelim’’),
unchanged in Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving
and Racks From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) (‘‘Kitchen Racks
Final’’).
57 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011
(September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results of the First Administrative Review, 71
FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat’l Mach.
Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F.
Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx.
183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
58 See H.R. Rep. No. 100–576 at 590 (1988).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
from these countries in calculating SVs
using Indonesian import data.
In these preliminary results, the
Department calculated the cost of labor
using data on industry-specific labor
cost from the primary surrogate country
(i.e., Indonesia), as described in Labor
Methodologies. The Department relied
on the International Labor Organization
(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of Labor Statistics
(‘‘Yearbook’’) Chapter 6A labor cost data
for Indonesia for the year 2008, because
this is the most recent Chapter 6A data
available for Indonesia. The Department
further determined that the two-digit
description under ISIC–Revision 3–D
(‘‘28–Manufacture of Fabricated Metal
Products’’) is the best available
information because it is specific to the
industry being examined and, therefore,
is derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise. Accordingly,
relying on Chapter 6A of the Yearbook,
the Department calculated the labor
input using labor cost data reported by
Indonesia to the ILO under SubClassification 28 of the ISIC–Revision
3–D, in accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act. For further
information on the calculation of the
wage rate.59
The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook, which was used to value
labor, reflects all costs related to labor,
including wages, benefits, housing,
training, etc. Pursuant to Labor
Methodologies, the Department’s
practice is to consider whether financial
ratios reflect labor expenses that are
included in other elements of the
respondent’s factors of production (e.g.,
general and administrative expenses).60
The financial statements used to
calculate financial ratios in this review
were sufficiently detailed to allow the
Department to isolate labor expenses
from other expenses such as selling,
general and administrative expenses.
Therefore, the Department revised its
calculation of surrogate financial ratios
consistent with Labor Methodologies to
exclude items incorporated in the labor
wage rate data in Chapter 6A of the ILO
data. As a result, bonuses and other
forms of compensation included in the
ILO’s calculation of wages are now
excluded from our calculation of labor
in our surrogate financial ratios.61
For these preliminary results the
Department did not separately value
59 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘2010–2011
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from the
People’s Republic of China: Factor Valuation
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of
Review,’’ dated May 30, 2012 (‘‘Factor Valuation
Memorandum’’).
60 See id. at 36094.
61 See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
energy inputs reported by the Chengde
Group, i.e., electricity, coal, coal tar, and
water because the financial statement
used to calculate factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative
expenses, and profit did not break out
energy expenses. Therefore these
expenses are included in the calculated
financial ratios. Thus, separately
valuing energy inputs would result in
double-counting.62
We valued truck freight expenses
using data from an Indonesian freight
forwarder, PT. Mantap Abiah Abadi, for
the month of September 2011.
We valued brokerage and handling
expenses using the World Bank
publication ‘‘Doing Business 2011:
Indonesia.’’
We valued marine insurance using a
price quote for July 2010, which we
obtained from RJG Consultants. RJG
Consultants is a market-economy
provider of marine insurance. We did
not inflate this rate since it is
contemporaneous with the POR.63
19 CFR 351.408(c)(4) directs the
Department to value overhead, general,
and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’)
and profit using non-proprietary
information gathered from producers of
identical or comparable merchandise in
the surrogate country. In this
administrative review, the Department
34019
valued overhead, SG&A using the
financial statements of PT Citra Tubindo
a manufacturer and service provider for
oilfield tubular goods.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department
made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect as certified by
the Federal Reserve Bank on the date of
the U.S. sale.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin
The preliminary weighted-average
dumping margin is as follows:
Oil country tubular goods from the PRC–2010/11 administrative review
Weighted-average
dumping margin
(percent)
Exporter
Jiangsu Chengde, Yangzhou Chengde, Taizhou Chengde (collectively, The Chengde Group .........................................
Disclosure and Public Comment
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit written comments no later than
30 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results of review.64
Rebuttals to written comments may be
filed no later than five days after the
written comments are filed.65
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice.66 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,
U.S. Department of Commerce, filed
electronically using Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). Requests should contain the
party’s name, address, and telephone
number, the number of participants, and
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs. If a request for a
hearing is made, we will inform parties
of the scheduled date for the hearing
62 See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final
Determination, 76 FR 67703, 67713 (November 2,
2011) (‘‘Steel Wheels’’).
63 See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
64 See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
which will be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
location to be determined.67 Parties
should confirm by telephone the date,
time, and location of the hearing. The
Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, which
will include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in the briefs, within 120
days of publication of these preliminary
results, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review.68 The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication date of the
final results of this review. For any
individually examined respondent
whose weighted-average dumping
margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50
percent) in the final results of this
review, we will calculate importerspecific assessment rates on the basis of
the ratio of the total amount of dumping
calculated for the importer’s examined
sales and the total entered value of
sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
65 See
19 CFR 351.309(d).
19 CFR 351.310(c).
67 See 19 CFR 351.310.
68 See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
69 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
66 See
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
185.84
351.212(b)(1).69 Where we calculate a
weighted-average dumping margin by
dividing the total amount of dumping
for reviewed sales to that party by the
total sales quantity associated with
those transactions, we will direct CBP to
assess importer-specific assessment
rates based on the resulting per-unit
rates. Where an importer- (or customer) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is
greater than de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to collect the appropriate
duties at the time of liquidation.70
Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is
zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.71
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for shipments of
the subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by
sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
the Chengde Group, which has a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be that established in the final results of
this review (except, if the rate is zero or
de minimis, then zero cash deposit will
comparisons using only the transactions associated
with that importer with offsets being provided for
non-dumped comparisons. See Antidumping
Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average
Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification,
77 FR 8103, February 14, 2012.
70 See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
71 See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
34020
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2012 / Notices
be required); (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that
received a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise
that have not been found to be entitled
to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 99.14
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a 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 administrative review and notice
are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–13972 Filed 6–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
National Fire Codes: Request for
Public Input for Revision of Codes and
Standards
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice contains the list of
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) documents opening for Public
Input, and it also contains information
on the NFPA Revision Process. The
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) is publishing this
notice on behalf of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) to
announce the NFPA’s proposal to revise
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:23 Jun 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
some of its fire safety codes and
standards and requests Public Input to
amend existing or begin the process of
developing new NFPA fire safety codes
and standards. The purpose of this
request is to increase public
participation in the system used by
NFPA to develop its codes and
standards.
DATES: Interested persons may submit
Public Input by 5:00 p.m. EST/EDST on
or before the date listed with the code
or standard.
ADDRESSES: Amy Beasley Cronin,
Secretary, Standards Council, NFPA, 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy,
Massachusetts 02169–7471.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Beasley Cronin, NFPA, Secretary,
Standards Council, at above address,
(617) 770–3000. David F. Alderman,
NIST, at 301–975–4019.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) proposes to revise some of its
fire safety codes and standards and
requests Public Input to amend existing
or begin the process of developing new
NFPA fire safety codes and standards.
The purpose of this request is to
increase public participation in the
system used by NFPA to develop its
codes and standards. The publication of
this notice of request for Public Input by
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) on behalf of NFPA is
being undertaken as a public service;
NIST does not necessarily endorse,
approve, or recommend any of the
standards referenced in the notice.
The NFPA process provides ample
opportunity for public participation in
the development of its codes and
standards. All NFPA codes and
standards are revised and updated every
three to five years in Revision Cycles
that begin twice each year and take
approximately two years to complete.
Each Revision Cycle proceeds according
to a published schedule that includes
final dates for all major events in the
process. The Code Revision Process
contains four basic steps that are
followed for developing new documents
as well as revising existing documents.
Step 1: Public Input Stage, which results
in the First Draft Report (formerly ROP);
Step 2: Comment Stage, which results in
the Second Draft Report (formerly ROC);
Step 3: The Association Technical
Meeting at the NFPA Conference &
Expo; and Step 4: Standards Council
consideration and issuance of
documents.
Note: NFPA rules state that, anyone
wishing to make Amending Motions on the
Public Comments, Second Revisions, or
Committee Comments must signal his or her
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to
Make a Motion by 5:00 p.m. EST/EDST of the
Deadline stated in the Second Draft Report.
Certified motions will then be posted on the
NFPA Web site. Documents that receive
notice of proper Amending Motions
(Certified Amending Motions) will be
presented for action at the Association
Technical Meeting at the NFPA Conference &
Expo. Documents that receive no motions
will be forwarded directly to the Standards
Council for action on issuance.
For more information on these rules
and for up-to-date information on
schedules and deadlines for processing
NFPA Codes and Standards, check the
NFPA Web site at www.nfpa.org, or
contact NFPA Codes and Standards
Administration.
Background
The National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) develops building,
fire, and electrical safety codes and
standards. Federal agencies frequently
use these codes and standards as the
basis for developing Federal regulations
concerning fire safety. Often, the Office
of the Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference of these
standards under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51.
When a Technical Committee begins
the development of a new or revised
NFPA code or standard, it enters one of
two Revision Cycles available each year.
The Revision Cycle begins with the Call
for Public Input, that is, a public notice
asking for any interested persons to
submit specific Input for developing or
revising a code or standards. The Call
for Public Input is published in a variety
of publications.
Following the Call for Public Input
period, the Technical Committee holds
a meeting to consider all the submitted
Public Input and make Revisions
accordingly. A document known as the
First Draft Report (formerly ROP), is
prepared containing all the Public
Input, the Technical Committee’s
response to each Input, as well as all
Committee-generated First Revisions.
The First Draft is then submitted for the
approval of the Technical Committee by
a formal written ballot. Any Revisions
that do not receive approval by a twothirds vote calculated in accordance
with NFPA rules will not appear in the
First Draft. If the necessary approval is
received, the Revisions are published in
the First Draft Report that is posted on
the NFPA Web site at www.nfpa.org for
public review and comment, and the
process continues to the next step.
Once the First Draft Report becomes
available, there is a 10 week comment
period during which anyone may
submit a Comment on the proposed
changes in the First Draft Report. The
E:\FR\FM\08JNN1.SGM
08JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34013-34020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13972]
[[Page 34013]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-943]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Rescission in Part and Intent To Rescind in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting the first
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country
tubular goods (``OCTG'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''),
covering the period May 19, 2010, through April 30, 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 24460 (May 2, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have preliminarily determined that Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube
Share Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu Chengde''), Taizhou Chengde Steel Tube Co.,
Ltd. (``Taizhou Chengde''), and Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd.
(``Yangzhou Chengde'') (collectively ``the Chengde Group'') are a
single entity for purposes of this administrative review \2\ and that
the Chengde Group made sales of subject merchandise in the United
States at prices below normal value (``NV'') during the period of
review (``POR''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of
subject merchandise during the POR. The Department is rescinding this
administrative review, in part, for 18 respondents with existing
separate rate status for which the request for review has been timely
withdrawn. Further, the Department preliminarily intends to rescind
this administrative review, in part, for 33 additional respondents who
do not have separate rate status for which the request for review has
been timely withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See below Affiliation section; see also the Department's
memorandum titled ``Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd.--
Affiliations and Collapsing,'' dated concurrent with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a summary of the argument. We intend to issue the final
results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this
notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4474, and (202) 482-0414, respectively.
Background
On May 21, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on OCTG from the PRC.\3\ On May 2, 2011, the
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on OCTG
from the PRC. On May 26, 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),
Jiangsu Chengde, a foreign producer and exporter of the subject
merchandise, requested that the Department review its sales of subject
merchandise during the POR.\4\ On May 31, 2011, United States Steel
Corporation (``U.S. Steel'') \5\ requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of the exports of subject merchandise made by
53 exporters/producers during the POR.\6\ On June 28, 2011, the
Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on OCTG from the PRC for the POR with regard to the 53 named
exporters/producers.\7\ On September 19, 2011, the Department selected
Jiangsu Chengde and Faray Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Faray'') as
mandatory respondents in this review.\8\ During July and August 2011,
four companies submitted separate rate certifications (including
Jiangsu Chengde) and two companies submitted separate rate
applications.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's
Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 28551 (May 21, 2010)
(``Order'').
\4\ See Letter from Jiangsu Chengde, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods
from China; Request for Administrative Review,'' dated May 26, 2011.
\5\ The petitioners in the investigation consisted of eight
parties. Not all eight parties have entered an appearance in this
review. TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube Company, V&M Star; and Maverick
Tube Corporation (``Maverick'') are interested parties. Only U.S.
Steel requested this administrative review.
\6\ See Letter from U.S. Steel, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the People's Republic of China; Request for Administrative Review,''
dated May 31, 2011.
\7\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 37781 (June 28, 2011) (``Initiation
Notice''). See also ``Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76
FR 53404 (August 26, 2011) in which the POR was corrected from
November 17, 2009 through April 30, 2011 to May 19, 2010 through
April 30, 2011.
\8\ See the memorandum ``Selection of Mandatory Respondents''
dated September 19, 2011.
\9\ The two companies that submitted separate rate applications
also received separate rate status in OCTG's less than fair value
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 19, 2011 the Department issued its antidumping duty
questionnaire to Jiangsu Chengde and Faray. On September 23, 2011, U.S.
Steel withdrew its request for review for all parties named in the
Initiation Notice except Jiangsu Chengde.\10\ The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to Jiangsu Chengde on December 12, 2011,
February 15, 2012, and April 10, 2012. On February 16, 2012, U.S. Steel
submitted comments on Jiangsu Chengde's initial questionnaire response
and its response to the December 12, 2011 supplemental questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Letter from the U.S. Steel ``Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of
Request for Administrative Review,'' dated September 23, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 10, 2011, the Department requested that Import
Administration's Office of Policy provide a list of surrogate countries
for this review.\11\ On November 28, 2011, the Office of Policy issued
its list of surrogate countries.\12\ On December 5, 2011, the
Department issued a letter to interested parties seeking comments on
surrogate country selection and surrogate values (``SVs'').\13\ On
December 19, 2011, TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube Company, V&M Star,
Maverick Tube Corporation (``Maverick'') and U.S. Steel provided
surrogate country selection comments. On January 18, 2012, these
parties also provided surrogate value comments. No interested party
submitted rebuttal comments with respect to surrogate country selection
or SVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, ``Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the People's Republic of China: Selection of Surrogate Countries,''
dated November 10, 2011.
\12\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country
Tubular Goods (``OCTG'') from the People's Republic of China
(``China''),'' dated November 28, 2011 (``Surrogate Country List'').
\13\ See Letter to Interested Parties, ``First Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods
from the People's Republic of China: Request for Comments on the
Selection of a Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values,'' dated
December 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 2012, the Department extended the time period for
completion of the preliminary results of this review
[[Page 34014]]
by 90 days until April 30, 2012.\14\ On April 24, 2012, the Department
extended the time period for completing the preliminary results of
review by an additional 30 days until May 30, 2012.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 2700 (January 19,
2012).
\15\ See Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Time for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 24464 (April 24,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is May 19, 2010, through April 30, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order consists of certain OCTG,
which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including
oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel
(both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end
finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and
coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute
(``API'') or non-API specifications, whether finished (including
limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and
limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are
attached. The merchandise covered by the order also covers OCTG
coupling stock. Excluded from the order are casing or tubing containing
10.5 percent or more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; unattached
couplings; and unattached thread protectors.
The merchandise covered by the order is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item
numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40,
7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10,
7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50,
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20,
7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60,
7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30,
7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80,
7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60,
7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45,
7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90,
7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10,
7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 7306.29.81.50.
The OCTG coupling stock covered by the order may also enter under
the following HTSUS item numbers: 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28,
7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44,
7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62,
7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80,
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25,
7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45,
7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65,
7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80.
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes only, the written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Rescission of Review in Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. For all
but one of the 53 companies for which the Department initiated an
administrative review, U.S. Steel was the only party that requested the
review. On September 23, 2011, U.S. Steel timely withdrew its review
requests for 52 of the 53 companies for which the U.S. Steel was the
only party that had requested an administrative review.
For those companies named in the Initiation Notice that received
separate rate status in the Final Determination other than Jiangsu
Chengde, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding
this administrative review. These companies are: (1) Anhui Tianda Oil
Pipe Co., Ltd.; (2) Benxi Northern Steel Pipes Co., Ltd.; (3) Faray
Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (4) Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.
of Shengli Oil Field, The Thermal Recovery Equipment, Zibo Branch; (5)
Hengyang Steel Tube Group Int'l Trading Inc.; (6) Jiangyin City
Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (7) Shandong Dongbao Steel Pipe Co.,
Ltd.; (8) Shandong Molong Petroleum Machinery Co., Ltd.; (9) Shengli
Oil Field Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.; (10) Shengli Oil Field
Freet Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; (11) Shengli Oil Field Highland
Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.; (12) Tianjin Pipe International Economic
& Trading Corp.; (13) Tianjin Tiangang Special Petroleum Pipe
Manufacturer Co., Ltd.; (14) Wuxi Baoda Petroleum Special Pipe
Manufacture Co., Ltd.; (15) Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.; (16) Wuxi
Zhenda Special Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (17) Xigang Seamless
Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; and (18) Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd.
Intent To Rescind the Review in Part
Petitioner's timely request for an administrative review included a
request to conduct an administrative review of multiple companies that
do not have separate rates. As described above, the U.S. Steel withdrew
its review request covering these companies. Because these companies
have not established their eligibility for a separate rate, these
companies will continue to be considered part of the PRC-wide entity.
Although the PRC-wide entity is not under review for these preliminary
results, the possibility exists that the PRC-wide entity could be under
review for the final results of this administrative review. Therefore,
we are not rescinding this review with respect to these companies at
this time but we intend to rescind this review with respect to the
following companies in the final results if the PRC-wide entity is not
reviewed: (1) Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Inc.; (2) Baosteel Group; (3)
Cangzhou Huaye Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (4) Cangzhou Qiancheng Steel
Pipe Co.; (5) Freet Petroleum Equipment Group Co., Ltd.; (6) Guangzhou
Juyi Steel Pipes Co., Ltd.; (7) Hebei Machinery Import & Export Co.,
Ltd.; (8) Hebei Zhongyuan Steel Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (9) Hefei
Zijin Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (10) Hengyang Valin MPM Tube
Co., Ltd.; (11) Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; (12) Huai'an
Zhenda Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (13) Huludao Steel Pipe
Industrial Co., Ltd.; (14) Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,
Ltd.; (15) Jiangsu Changbao Precision Tube Co., Ltd.; (16) Jiangsu
Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; (17) Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co.,
Ltd.; (18) Jiangyin Chuangzin Oil Pipe; (19) Jiangyin City Seamless
Steel Tube Factory; (20) Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd.; (21) Northern
Tool Equipment Co., Ltd.; (22) Shandong Molong Group Co.; (23) Shengli
Oil Field Freet Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (24) Thermal Recovery
Equipment Manufacturer of Shengli Oil Field Freet Petroleum Equipment
Co.; Ltd., (25) Tianjin Pipe Group Co., Ltd.; (26) Tianjin Shuangjie
Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; (27) Wuxi Fastube Industry Co.; (28) Wuxi
Huayou Special Steel Co., Ltd.; (29) Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co.,
Ltd.; (30)
[[Page 34015]]
Xi'An Meixinte Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd.; \16\ (31)Yantai Yuanhua
Steel Tubes Co., Ltd.; (32) ZhangJiaGang ZhongYuan Pipe-Making Co.; and
(33) Zhejiang Jianli Enterprise Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Yangzhou Chengde was covered by the initiation notice and
did not receive a separate rate in the less-than-fair-value, however
it is being collapsed with Jiangsu Chengde, the mandatory respondent
in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Yangzhou Chengde
U.S. Steel requested a review of Yangzhou Chengde and subsequently
withdrew its review request with respect to this company. However, as
described above and in the affiliation-collapsing memorandum,\17\ the
Department has collapsed Yangzhou Chengde, Jiangsu Chengde, and Taizhou
Chengde into a single entity for purposes of this administrative
review. Therefore, Yangzhou Chengde continues to be subject to review
in this segment of the proceeding as part of the Chengde Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See the Department's memorandum titled ``Jiangsu Chengde
Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd.--Affiliations and Collapsing''
(``Affiliation/Collapsing Memo'') dated concurrently with the date
of signature of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No interested party contested the Department's treatment of the PRC
as a non-market economy (``NME'') country in this administrative
review, and the Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all
past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews.\18\
Designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department.\19\ As such, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME in
this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
\19\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an administrative review of imports
from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base
NV, in most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production
(``FOP''), valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') country or
countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more ME countries that are: (A) at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (B) significant
producers of comparable merchandise.\20\ The sources of the SVs are
discussed under the ``Factor Valuations'' section below and in the
Factor Valuation Memorandum,\21\ which is on file in the Central
Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004).
\21\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate
country for this proceeding, the Department first determined that
Colombia, Indonesia, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and
Ukraine are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic
development.\22\ Once the Department has identified countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC, it identifies those countries which
are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube Company, and V&M Star submitted a letter
stating that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country because: (1)
Indonesia is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC;
(2) Indonesia is a significant producer of identical and comparable
merchandise; and (3) the government of Indonesia has published publicly
available import data covering the entire POR from which values for the
major FOPs may be derived.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Letter from TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube Company, and V&M
Star, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated December 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel submitted a letter stating that Indonesia is the
appropriate surrogate country because: (1) Indonesia is at a level of
economic development comparable to the PRC; (2) Indonesia is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise; (3) Indonesia data
meets the Department's criteria: the data allows the Department to
calculate SVs using period-wide average prices that are publicly
available, specific to the inputs in question, net of taxes and import
duties, and contemporaneous with the POR.\24\ In addition, U.S. Steel
states that the Department determined in the investigation that
Indonesian import data provided the best available information to value
the ``most important input in the production of OCTG, steel billets.''
\25\ Moreover, U.S. Steel contends that financial statements will show
that that surrogate financial ratios can be calculated using Indonesian
financial statements that provide ample, contemporaneous financial data
from producers of tubular products with physical characteristics, end
uses, and production processes similar to those of OCTG. In addition,
U.S. Steel contends that the Department has recognized that the
financial data available for Indonesia ``provide sufficient detail'' to
calculate surrogate financial ratios.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Letter from U.S. Steel, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods
from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country Selection,''
dated January 6, 2012 (``U.S. Steel's SV Letter'').
\25\ U.S. Steel cites the Final Determination, and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20.
\26\ U.S. Steel cites Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838 (April 13, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum at comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maverick submitted a letter incorporating by reference the December
19, 2011, comments made by TMK IPSCO, Wheatland Tube Company, and V&M
Star stating that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country.
Maverick states that in the Final Determination, India was the primary
surrogate country but India is no longer designated on the Surrogate
Country List for the PRC. In addition, Maverick states that in the
Final Determination the Department selected Indonesia as the source of
the data used to calculate the SV for steel billets, which it claims
comprises the vast majority of the cost of production of OCTG. Maverick
contends that by doing so, the Department, for all practical purposes,
indicated that Indonesia was the appropriate source of SVs for all
primary material inputs.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Letter from Maverick, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the People's Republic of China: Comments on Surrogate Country
Selection,'' dated January 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department has
determined that Indonesia is the appropriate surrogate country to use
in this review in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, based
on the following: (1) Indonesia is at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC;\28\ (2) Indonesia, in terms of total
value of net exports, is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise;\29\ and (3) Indonesian SVsare available to value all of
the FOPsreported by the Chengde Group, and in accordance with the
Department's preference, this data represent non-export average values
and are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive.
[[Page 34016]]
Therefore, because Indonesia represents the experience of producers of
comparable merchandise operating in a surrogate country, and provides
the best, and only, available information on the record of this review,
we have selected Indonesia as the surrogate country. Accordingly, we
have calculated NV using Indonesian import data to value Chengde's
FOPs. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information
to value all FOPs and factory overhead, sales general and
administrative expenses, and profit ratios.\30\ In accordance with 19
CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly available
information to value the FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary results of review.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Surrogate Country List.
\29\ See U.S. Steel' SV Letter.
\30\ Other than with respect to ocean freight, Chengde Group did
not report any MEpurchase prices for its reported FOPs.
\31\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this review, interested parties may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after the applicable deadline for submission of such factual
information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or
corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department
generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously
absent-from-the-record alternative SV information pursuant to 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affiliation
Based on the evidence presented in Jiangsu Chengde's questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find that Jiangsu Chengde is affiliated
with Yangzhou Chengde and Taizhou Chengde, both of which are capable of
producing subject merchandise, pursuant to sections 771(33)(F) of the
Act. In addition, based on the information presented in Jiangsu
Chengde's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Jiangsu
Chengde, Taizhou Chengde, and Yangzhou Chengde, should be collapsed for
the purposes of this administrative review. This finding is based on
the determination that: (1) Jiangsu Chengde, Yangzhou Chengde, and
Taizhou Chengde are affiliated; (2) Jiangsu Chengde is a producer of
subject merchandise; (3) Yangzhou Chengde, and Taizhou Chengde are
capable of producing merchandise under consideration and no retooling
would be necessary in order to restructure manufacturing priorities;
and (4) there is significant potential for manipulation of price or
production among the parties.\32\ For further discussion, see the
Affiliation/Collapsing Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department.\33\ In proceedings involving NME countries,
the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single weighted-average dumping margin.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
\34\ See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006) (``Lined Paper from the PRC''); see
also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond
Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application and certification process by which exporters may obtain
separate rate status in NME proceedings.\35\ It is the Department's
policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country
a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both
de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under
a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a ME, then a separate rate analysis
is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Initiation Notice.
\36\ See e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Applicants--Withdrawn Request for Review
Three companies other than the Chengde Group submitted separate
rate certifications and two companies submitted separate rate
applications. However, because U.S. Steel withdrew its request for
review of these companies and no other company requested a review of
them, their separate rate certifications/applications have not been
considered for purposes of this administrative review.
Separate Rate Recipients
Jiangsu Chengde reported that it is a wholly Chinese-owned
company.\37\ Therefore, the Department must analyze whether it can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over its export activities. Evidence on the record shows that
Taizhou Chengde is also a wholly Chinese-owned company. Yangzhou
Chengde is a joint venture with Chinese and Hong Kong ownership.
Taizhou Chengde and Yangzhou Chengde are not individually eligible for
separate rate consideration in this review because evidence on the
record indicates they had no shipments of subject merchandise during
the POR. However, for these preliminary results, the Department
determines that the Chengde Group, comprised of Jiangsu Chengde,
Taizhou Chengde, and Yangzhou Chengde is eligible for separate rate
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Jiangsu Chengde's section A questionnaire response
(``AQR''), dated October 20, 2011 at page A-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by the Chengde Group supports a preliminary
finding of the absence of de jure governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
their businesses and export licenses; (2) applicable legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China,
contained in Jiangsu Chengde's AQR, at Exhibit A-5 and Company Law
of the People's Republic of China at Exhibit A-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each
[[Page 34017]]
respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\40\ The Department has determined that an analysis
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control, which would
preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by the Chengde Group supports a preliminary
finding of the absence of de facto of government control based on the
following: (1) The absence of evidence that the EPs are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; \41\ (2) the
respondents have authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; \42\ (3) the respondents have autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; \43\ and (4)
the respondents retain the proceeds of their export sales and make
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Jiangsu Chengde's AQR, at A-7--A-8 and Exhibit A-9.
\42\ Id.
\43\ See Jiangsu Chengde's AQR, at A-9--A-10 and Exhibit A-3.
\44\ See Jiangsu Chengde's AQR at A-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this review by the
Chengde Group demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to the Chengde Group's exports of the
merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, we have determined that
Jiangsu Chengde has demonstrated its eligibility for a separate
rate.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Yangzhou Chengde and Taizhou Chengde, which are part of the
collapsed entity, are not eligible for separate rates because they
had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of OCTG to the United States by the
Chengde Group were made at less than NV, the Department compared EP to
NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice. 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.\46\ In particular, the Department compared monthly
weighted-average EPs with monthly weighted-average normal values and
granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the
weighted-average dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all
sales reported by the Chengde Group. We calculated EP based on the
packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the
United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement
expenses (e.g., foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of
exportation, domestic brokerage, international freight to the port of
importation, etc.) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees
were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we
based those charges on surrogate value rates from Indonesia. See
``Factor Valuation'' section below for further discussion of surrogate
value rates.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a ME and pays
for it in ME currency, the Department may value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input.\47\ The Chengde Group reported that it
purchased international freight services from ME suppliers for
transportation of the subject merchandise to the United States and paid
for it in a market economy currency.\48\ However, the Chengde Group in
fact purchased its ocean freight from a NME provider who contracted
from an ME freight provider. Therefore, because the Chengde Group
purchased the ocean freight services from a NME supplier, for these
preliminary results we are valuing ocean freight using an SV.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components, Div. of Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F.3d
1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\48\ See Jiangsu Chengde's section C questionnaire response at
page C-24 and Exhibit C-4.
\49\ See Jiangsu Chengde's supplemental questionnaire response
dated May 2, 2012 at 3 and Exhibits S3-4, S3-5 and S3-6. See also
Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68148
(November 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using a factors of production methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the Department finds
that the available information does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value
under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining NV in an NME context,
the Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. The Department's questionnaire requires that the
Chengde Group provide information regarding the weighted-average FOPs
across all of the company's plants and/or suppliers that produce the
merchandise under consideration, not just the FOPs from a single plant
or supplier. This methodology ensures that the Department's
calculations are as accurate as possible.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October
28, 2003), and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment
19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(3)
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported
by the Chengde Group for direct materials, energy, labor, and packing
materials.
The Chengde Group reported that it generates steel scrap during the
production process of merchandise under consideration and requested an
[[Page 34018]]
offset for this scrap.\51\ However, the Department's policy is to grant
scrap offsets for scrap produced, not sold, during the POR.\52\ The
Chengde Group reported that it does not track scrap when it is produced
but collects scrap and weighs it when it is sold.\53\ Because the
Chengde Group has not established that the steel scrap it sold during
the POR was produced during the POR, for the preliminary results, the
Department has determined that the Chengde Group is not entitled to a
byproduct offset for steel scrap in its margin calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Jiangsu Chengde's section D questionnaire response at
pages D-14--D-15.
\52\ See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2007-2008
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 8301
(February 24, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum
at Comment 10.
\53\ See Jiangsu Chengde's section D questionnaire response at
pages D-14--D-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on FOPs reported by the Chengde Group for the POR.
To calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor
consumption quantities by publicly available Indonesian SVs. In
selecting the SVs, the Department considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data. The Department adjusted input prices
by including freight costs to make them delivered prices, as
appropriate. Specifically, the Department added to Indonesian import
surrogate values an Indonesian surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment
is in accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08
(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all SVs used to value the
Chengde Group's reported FOPs may be found in the Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, in accordance with the Department's
practice, except where noted below, we used data from Indonesian import
statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') and other publicly
available Indonesian sources in order to calculate SVs for the Chengde
Group's FOPs (i.e., direct materials, energy, and packing materials)
and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent
practicable, SVs which are non-export average values, most
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\54\
The record shows that data in the Indonesian import statistics, as well
as those from the other Indonesian sources, are contemporaneous with
the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\55\ In those instances
where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the
SVs using, where appropriate, the Indonesian Producer Price Index
(``PPI'') inflators/deflators as published in the International
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\55\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
\56\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum. See also, e.g., Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5,
2009) (``Kitchen Racks Prelim''), unchanged in Certain Kitchen
Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656
(July 24, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, with regard to Indonesian import-based SVs, we have
disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be
subsidized, such as those from South Korea, India, and Thailand. We
have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.\57\ We are also guided by the statute's
legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a
formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized.\58\
Rather, the Department was instructed by Congress to base its decision
on information that is available to it at the time it is making its
determination. In accordance with the foregoing, we have not used
prices from these countries in calculating SVs using Indonesian import
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011
(September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat'l
Mach. Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334
(CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
\58\ See H.R. Rep. No. 100-576 at 590 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the cost of
labor using data on industry-specific labor cost from the primary
surrogate country (i.e., Indonesia), as described in Labor
Methodologies. The Department relied on the International Labor
Organization (``ILO'') Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'')
Chapter 6A labor cost data for Indonesia for the year 2008, because
this is the most recent Chapter 6A data available for Indonesia. The
Department further determined that the two-digit description under
ISIC-Revision 3-D (``28-Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products'') is
the best available information because it is specific to the industry
being examined and, therefore, is derived from industries that produce
comparable merchandise. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the
Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor cost
data reported by Indonesia to the ILO under Sub-Classification 28 of
the ISIC-Revision 3-D, in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
For further information on the calculation of the wage rate.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See Memorandum to the File, ``2010-2011 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods
from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum for
the Preliminary Results of Review,'' dated May 30, 2012 (``Factor
Valuation Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ILO data from Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, which was used to
value labor, reflects all costs related to labor, including wages,
benefits, housing, training, etc. Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the
Department's practice is to consider whether financial ratios reflect
labor expenses that are included in other elements of the respondent's
factors of production (e.g., general and administrative expenses).\60\
The financial statements used to calculate financial ratios in this
review were sufficiently detailed to allow the Department to isolate
labor expenses from other expenses such as selling, general and
administrative expenses. Therefore, the Department revised its
calculation of surrogate financial ratios consistent with Labor
Methodologies to exclude items incorporated in the labor wage rate data
in Chapter 6A of the ILO data. As a result, bonuses and other forms of
compensation included in the ILO's calculation of wages are now
excluded from our calculation of labor in our surrogate financial
ratios.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See id. at 36094.
\61\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these preliminary results the Department did not separately
value
[[Page 34019]]
energy inputs reported by the Chengde Group, i.e., electricity, coal,
coal tar, and water because the financial statement used to calculate
factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and
profit did not break out energy expenses. Therefore these expenses are
included in the calculated financial ratios. Thus, separately valuing
energy inputs would result in double-counting.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 76
FR 67703, 67713 (November 2, 2011) (``Steel Wheels'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued truck freight expenses using data from an Indonesian
freight forwarder, PT. Mantap Abiah Abadi, for the month of September
2011.
We valued brokerage and handling expenses using the World Bank
publication ``Doing Business 2011: Indonesia.''
We valued marine insurance using a price quote for July 2010, which
we obtained from RJG Consultants. RJG Consultants is a market-economy
provider of marine insurance. We did not inflate this rate since it is
contemporaneous with the POR.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 CFR 351.408(c)(4) directs the Department to value overhead,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and profit using non-
proprietary information gathered from producers of identical or
comparable merchandise in the surrogate country. In this administrative
review, the Department valued overhead, SG&A using the financial
statements of PT Citra Tubindo a manufacturer and service provider for
oilfield tubular goods.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank on
the date of the U.S. sale.
Weighted-Average Dumping Margin
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil country tubular goods from the PRC-2010/11 administrative review
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter dumping margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiangsu Chengde, Yangzhou Chengde, Taizhou 185.84
Chengde (collectively, The Chengde Group......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review.\64\ Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no later than
five days after the written comments are filed.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\65\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice.\66\ 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, U.S.
Department of Commerce, filed electronically using Import
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''). Requests should contain the
party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a
request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled
date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230, at a time and location to be determined.\67\ Parties should
confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing. The
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the
briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\67\ See 19 CFR 351.310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review.\68\ The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. For any individually examined respondent whose
weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50
percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate
importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the
total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales
and the total entered value of sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).\69\ Where we calculate a weighted-average dumping margin
by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that
party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions,
we will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based
on the resulting per-unit rates. Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of
liquidation.\70\ Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem
or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
\69\ 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. See
Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings;
Final Modification, 77 FR 8103, February 14, 2012.
\70\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\71\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the Chengde
Group, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is
zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will
[[Page 34020]]
be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of
subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 99.14
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-13972 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
