Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 50465-50469 [2012-20537]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.225(l)(2) and (3), we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to
continue to suspend liquidation of all
entries of blends of honey and rice
syrup, from the PRC that were entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after December 7,
2011, the date of initiation of this
anticircumvention inquiry.
Administrative Protective Order
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as
a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under the APO,
which continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with section
781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(j).
Dated: August 14, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–20548 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–485–805]
Certain Small Diameter Carbon and
Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and
Pressure Pipe From Romania:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
Background
On August 10, 2000, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on certain small diameter carbon and
alloy seamless standard, line and
pressure pipe (small diameter seamless
pipe) from Romania.1
On August 31, 2011, pursuant to
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.213(b), AMTP, a Romanian
producer and exporter of the subject
merchandise, requested an
administrative review of itself. On
October 3, 2011, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a
notice of initiation of administrative
review of the order.2 We are conducting
the administrative review of the order in
accordance with section 751(a) of the
Act.
On January 30, 2012, the petitioner,
United States Steel Corporation (the
petitioner) alleged that AMTP made
sales of small diameter seamless pipe
from Romania at prices below the cost
of production (COP) in its home market
during the POR.3 The Department
determined that this allegation was
timely filed in accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(d)(2)(ii). On February 24, 2012,
we initiated a sales-below-cost
investigation with respect to AMTP.4
Scope of the Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
small diameter carbon and alloy
seamless standard, line and pressure
pipe from Romania. The review covers
one producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise, ArcelorMittal Tubular
Products Roman S.A. (AMTP). The
period of review (POR) is August 1,
2010, through July 31, 2011. We
preliminarily determine that AMTP did
AGENCY:
not sell the subject merchandise at less
than normal value during the POR. We
invite interested parties to comment on
these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 21, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482–
1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
For purposes of this review, the
products covered include small
diameter seamless carbon and alloy
(other than stainless) steel standard,
line, and pressure pipes and redraw
1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and
Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe
From Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 61076
(October 3, 2011).
3 See letter from the petitioner dated January 30,
2012.
4 See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach dated
February 24, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50465
hollows produced, or equivalent, to the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) A–53, ASTM A–106,
ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–
335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and
the American Petroleum Institute (API)
5L specifications and meeting the
physical parameters described below,
regardless of application. The scope of
this review also include all products
used in standard, line, or pressure pipe
applications and meeting the physical
parameters described below, regardless
of specification. Specifically included
within the scope of this review are
seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less
than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm)
in outside diameter, regardless of wallthickness, manufacturing process (hot
finished or cold-drawn), end finish
(plain end, beveled end, upset end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled), or
surface finish.
The merchandise subject to this
review is typically classified in the
HTSUS at subheadings: 7304.10.10.20,
7304.10.50.20, 7304.19.10.20,
7304.19.50.20, 7304.31.30.00,
7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16,
7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24,
7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32,
7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60,
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10,
7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and
7304.59.80.25.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under review is
dispositive.
Specifications, Characteristics, and
Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are
intended for the conveyance of water,
steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil
products, natural gas and other liquids
and gasses in industrial piping systems.
They may carry these substances at
elevated pressures and temperatures
and may be subject to the application of
external heat. Seamless carbon steel
pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A–106
standard may be used in temperatures of
up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at
various American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) code stress levels.
Alloy pipes made to ASTM A–335
standard must be used if temperatures
and stress levels exceed those allowed
for ASTM A–106. Seamless pressure
pipes sold in the United States are
commonly produced to the ASTM A–
106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most
commonly produced to the ASTM A–53
specification and generally are not
intended for high temperature service.
They are intended for the low
temperature and pressure conveyance of
water, steam, natural gas, air and other
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50466
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices
liquids and gasses in plumbing and
heating systems, air conditioning units,
automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses. Standard pipes (depending
on type and code) may carry liquids at
elevated temperatures but must not
exceed relevant ASME code
requirements. If exceptionally low
temperature uses or conditions are
anticipated, standard pipe may be
manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM
A–334 specifications.
Seamless line pipes are intended for
the conveyance of oil and natural gas or
other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line
pipes are produced to the API 5L
specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A–
589) and seamless galvanized pipe for
fire protection uses (ASTM A–795) are
used for the conveyance of water.
Seamless pipes are commonly
produced and certified to meet ASTM
A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API
5L–X42 specifications. To avoid
maintaining separate production runs
and separate inventories, manufacturers
typically triple or quadruple certify the
pipes by meeting the metallurgical
requirements and performing the
required tests pursuant to the respective
specifications. Since distributors sell the
vast majority of this product, they can
thereby maintain a single inventory to
service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A–
106 pressure pipes and triple or
quadruple certified pipes is in pressure
piping systems by refineries,
petrochemical plants, and chemical
plants. Other applications are in power
generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel
or nuclear), and in some oil field uses
(on shore and off shore) such as for
separator lines, gathering lines and
metering runs. A minor application of
this product is for use as oil and gas
distribution lines for commercial
applications. These applications
constitute the majority of the market for
the subject seamless pipes. However,
ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in
some boiler applications.
Redraw hollows are any unfinished
pipe or ‘‘hollow profiles’’ of carbon or
alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or
cold drawing/hydrostatic testing or
other methods to enable the material to
be sold under ASTM A–53, ASTM A–
106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334,
ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–
795, and API 5L specifications.
The scope of this review includes all
seamless pipe meeting the physical
parameters described above and
produced to one of the specifications
listed above, regardless of application,
and whether or not also certified to a
non-covered specification. Standard,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
line, and pressure applications and the
above-listed specifications are defining
characteristics of the scope of these
reviews. Therefore, seamless pipes
meeting the physical description above,
but not produced to the ASTM A–53,
ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–
334, ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589,
ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications
shall be covered if used in a standard,
line, or pressure application.
For example, there are certain other
ASTM specifications of pipe which,
because of overlapping characteristics,
could potentially be used in ASTM A–
106 applications. These specifications
generally include ASTM A–161, ASTM
A–192, ASTM A–210, ASTM A–252,
ASTM A–501, ASTM A–523, ASTM A–
524, and ASTM A–618. When such
pipes are used in a standard, line, or
pressure pipe application, such
products are covered by the scope of
this review.
Specifically excluded from the scope
of this review are boiler tubing and
mechanical tubing, if such products are
not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM A–
106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334,
ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–
795, and API 5L specifications and are
not used in standard, line, or pressure
pipe applications. In addition, finished
and unfinished OCTG are excluded
from the scope of this review, if covered
by the scope of another antidumping
duty order from the same country. If not
covered by such an OCTG order,
finished and unfinished OCTG are
included in this scope when used in
standard, line, or pressure applications.
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether AMTP’s sales
of small diameter seamless pipe from
Romania were made in the United
States at less than normal value, we
compared the constructed export price
(CEP) to the normal value as described
in the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.5
When making this comparison in
accordance with section 771(16) of the
Act, we considered all products sold in
the home market as described in the
‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section of this
notice, above, that were in the ordinary
5 In these preliminary results, the Department
applied the weighted-average dumping margin
calculation method adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average
Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain
Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77
FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (‘‘Final Modification
for Reviews’’). In particular, the Department
compared monthly weighted-average CEPs with
monthly weighted-average normal values and
granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the
calculation of the weighted average dumping
margin.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
course of trade for purposes of
determining an appropriate product
comparison to the U.S. sale. If an
identical home-market model with
identical physical characteristics as
described below was reported, we made
comparisons to weighted-average homemarket prices that were based on all
sales of the identical product during a
contemporaneous month. If there were
no contemporaneous sales of an
identical model, we identified sales of
the most similar merchandise that were
most contemporaneous with the U.S.
sale in accordance with 19 CFR
351.414(f).
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we compared products
produced by AMTP and sold in the U.S.
and home markets on the basis of the
comparison product which was closest
in terms of the physical characteristics
to the product sold in the United States.
In the order of importance, these
characteristics are specification/grade,
manufacturing process, outside
diameter, wall thickness, surface finish,
and end finish.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s
regulations states that, normally, the
Department will use the date of invoice,
as recorded in the producer’s or
exporter’s records kept in the ordinary
course of business, as the date of sale.
The regulation provides further that the
Department may use a date other than
the date of the invoice if the Secretary
is satisfied that a different date better
reflects the date on which the material
terms of sale are established. The
Department has a long-standing practice
of finding that, where shipment date
precedes invoice date, shipment date
better reflects the date on which the
material terms of sale are established.6
For all U.S. sales, AMTP reported the
date of shipment from the mill in
Romania as the date of sale because the
date of shipment preceded the invoice
date. With respect to AMTP’s U.S. sales,
price and quantity are subject to change
until the merchandise is shipped from
the mill in Romania. Because the
material terms of sale are established at
shipment, prior to invoicing, we have
6 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10; see also Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel
Beams From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices
used the date of sale as reported by
AMTP.
AMTP reported the earlier of
shipment date or invoice date for its
home market sales. With respect to
AMTP’s home market sales, price and
quantity are subject to change until
invoicing, except where invoicing
occurs after shipment, in which case the
material terms are set when the product
is shipped. Accordingly, we have used
the date of sale as reported by AMTP.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, we used CEP for AMTP because
the subject merchandise was sold in the
United States by a U.S. seller affiliated
with the producer.
We calculated CEP based on the
delivered price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We also
made deductions for any movement
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we
calculated the CEP by deducting selling
expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States,
which includes direct selling expenses
and indirect selling expenses. Finally,
we made an adjustment for profit
allocated to these expenses in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there is
a sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating normal value (i.e., the
aggregate volume of home market sales
of the foreign like product is five
percent or more of the aggregate volume
of U.S. sales), we compared the volume
of AMTP’s home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its
U.S. sales of subject merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)
of the Act. Based on this comparison,
we determined that AMTP had a viable
home market during the POR.
Consequently, we based normal value
on home market sales to unaffiliated
purchasers made in the usual
commercial quantities in the ordinary
course of trade and sales made to
affiliated purchasers where we find
prices were made at arm’s length,
described in detail below.
Cost of Production
Based on our analysis of the
petitioner’s allegation, we found that
there were reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales of the
foreign like product in the home market
were made at prices below their COP.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
of the Act, we initiated a sales-belowcost investigation to determine whether
sales were made at prices below their
respective COP.7
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated COP based on
the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product
plus an amount for general and
administrative expenses, and financial
expenses. We relied on the COP data
submitted by AMTP with one exception:
We increased the reported costs using
the major-input adjustment for an
affiliated-party input pursuant to
section 773(f)(3) of the Act.8 We
examined the cost data and determined
that our quarterly cost methodology is
not warranted, and, therefore, we have
applied our standard methodology of
using annual costs based on the
reported data, adjusted as described
above.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
On a product-specific basis, we
compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales
of the foreign like product, as required
under section 773(b) of the Act, to
determine whether the sales were made
at prices below the COP. We compared
model-specific COPs to the reported
home market prices less any applicable
movement charges, discounts and
rebates, selling and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, where less than 20 percent of
the respondent’s sales of a given
product are at prices less than the COP,
we do not disregard any below cost
sales of that product because we
determine that the below cost sales were
not made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’
Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent’s sales of a given product
during the POI were at prices less than
COP, we determine that such sales have
been made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’
and, thus, we disregard below cost
sales.9 Further, we determine that the
sales were made within an extended
period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because
we examine below cost sales occurring
during the entire POR. Because we are
applying our standard annual-average
7 See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach dated
February 24, 2012.
8 See Memorandum to Neal Halper from Kristin
Case entitled ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary
Determination—ArcelorMittal Tubular Products
Roman S.A.,’’ dated August 14, 2012.
9 See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50467
cost test in these preliminary results, we
have also applied our standard costrecovery test with no adjustments. In
such cases, because we compare prices
to POR-average costs, we also determine
that such sales were not made at prices
which would permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D)
of the Act.
In this case, we found that, for certain
specific products, more than 20 percent
of AMTP’s home market sales were at
prices less than the COP and, in
addition, such sales did not provide for
the recovery of costs within a reasonable
period of time. Therefore, we
disregarded these sales and used the
remaining sales as the basis for
determining normal value in accordance
with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Home Market Prices
We based normal value on the starting
prices to home market customers. We
made adjustments for differences in
packing and for movement expenses in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)
and (B) of the Act. We also made
adjustments for differences in cost
attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, and for
differences in circumstances of sale in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We
made circumstance-of-sale adjustments
by deducting home market direct selling
expenses from normal value.
Affiliation
The Department may calculate normal
value based on a sale to an affiliated
party only if it is satisfied that the price
to the affiliated party is comparable to
the price at which sales are made to
parties not affiliated with the exporter
or producer, i.e., sales were made at
arm’s-length prices.10 We exclude from
our analysis transactions to affiliated
customers for consumption in the home
market that we determine were not sold
at arm’s-length prices.
To test whether AMTP’s sales to
affiliated parties were made at arm’slength prices, we compared the prices of
sales of comparable merchandise to
affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net
of all rebates, movement charges, direct
selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance
with our practice, when the prices
charged to an affiliated party were, on
average, between 98 and 102 percent of
the prices charged to unaffiliated parties
10 See
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
19 CFR 351.403(c).
21AUN1
50468
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices
for merchandise comparable to that sold
to the affiliated party, we determined
that the sales to the affiliated party were
at arm’s-length prices.11 We
preliminarily find that all of AMTP’s
sales to affiliated parties were made at
arm’s-length prices and we included
them in our calculation of normal value.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Level of Trade
To determine whether home market
sales are at a different level of trade than
U.S. sales, we examined stages in the
marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated
customer.
During the POR, AMTP reported that
it sold the foreign like product in the
home market through a single channel
of distribution and that the selling
activities associated with all sales
through this channel of distribution did
not differ. We found no evidence to
contradict AMTP’s representations.
Accordingly, we found that the home
market channel of distribution
constituted a single level of trade.
All of AMTP’s U.S. sales were CEP
sales. We identified the level of trade
based on the price after the deduction
of expenses and profit under section
772(d) of the Act. Most of the selling
activities are performed by the U.S.
affiliate and, after eliminating expenses
and profit associated with those selling
activities, we found that AMTP
performed few selling activities and that
the intensity levels for these activities
were very small in comparison to the
intensity levels for activities performed
for the home market level of trade.
Therefore, we have concluded that CEP
sales constitute a different level of trade
from the level of trade in the home
market and that the home market level
of trade was at a more advanced stage
of distribution than the CEP level of
trade.
We were unable to match CEP sales at
the same level of trade in the home
market or to make a level-of-trade
adjustment because there was no level
of trade in the home market equivalent
to the CEP level of trade. Because the
data available do not provide an
appropriate basis to determine a levelof-trade adjustment and the home
market level of trade is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the
CEP, we made a CEP-offset adjustment
to NV for all such sales. The CEP offset
was the sum of indirect selling expenses
incurred on home market sales up to the
amount of indirect selling expenses
incurred on the U.S. sales.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we
preliminarily determine that no
dumping margin exists for AMTP for the
period August 1, 2010, through July 31,
2011.
Disclosure and Comment
We will disclose the calculations used
in our analysis to parties to this review
within five days of the date of
publication of this notice.12 Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.13 If a
hearing is requested, the Department
will notify interested parties of the
hearing schedule.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results of
this review. Interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice.14
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed not later than 35 days after the
date of publication of this notice.15
Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this review are
requested to submit with each argument
(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument with an
electronic version included.
We intend to issue the final results of
this administrative review, including
the results of our analysis of issues
raised in the case briefs, within 120
days after the date on which the
preliminary results are published.16
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the
administrative review, the Department
shall determine and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) shall assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. If AMTP’s weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis in
the final results of this review, we will
calculate an importer-specific
assessment rate on the basis of the ratio
of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the importer’s
examined sales and the total entered
value of the sales in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1). If AMTP’s weightedaverage dumping margin continues to be
zero or de minimis in the final results
of review, we will instruct CBP not to
assess duties on any of AMTP’s entries
12 See
19 CFR 351.224(b).
19 CFR 351.310(c).
14 See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
15 See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
16 See 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
13 See
11 See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party
Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186
(November 15, 2002).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in accordance with the Final
Modification for Reviews, i.e., ‘‘where
the weighted-average margin of
dumping for the exporter is determined
to be zero or de minimis, no
antidumping duties will be assessed.’’ 17
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification applies
to entries of subject merchandise during
the POR produced by AMTP where
AMTP did not know that its
merchandise was destined for the
United States. In such instances, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
entries at the all-others rate if there is no
rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full
discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003).
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of the
notice of final results of administrative
review for all shipments of subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication, as provided
by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The
cash deposit rate for AMTP will be the
rate established in the final results of
this review; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed
above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review or the less-than-fair-value
investigation but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate
for all other manufacturers or exporters
will continue to be 13.06 percent, the
all-others rate established in Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small
Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless
Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From
Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10,
2000). These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
17 See Final Modification for Reviews, 77 FR at
8102.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 14, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–20537 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Advisory Board
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
announces that the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory
Board will hold an open meeting on
Wednesday, August 29, 2012, from 8:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
DATES: The meeting will convene
August 29, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. and will
adjourn at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time that
day.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Please note
admittance instructions under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Lellock, Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau
Drive, Mail Stop 4800, Gaithersburg,
Maryland 20899–4800, telephone
number (301) 975–4269, email:
Karen.Lellock@nist.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MEP
Advisory Board (Board) is composed of
10 members, appointed by the Director
of NIST. MEP is a unique program
consisting of centers across the United
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:31 Aug 20, 2012
Jkt 226001
States and Puerto Rico with
partnerships at the state, federal, and
local levels. The Board provides a forum
for input and guidance from the MEP
program stakeholders in the formulation
and implementation of tools and
services focused on supporting and
growing the U.S. manufacturing
industry and provides advice on MEP
programs, plans, and policies, assesses
the soundness of MEP plans and
strategies, and assesses current
performance against MEP program
plans.
This meeting will focus on (1) a
review of MEP’s work with several
states on the development of plans to
support the growth of advanced
manufacturing industries, (2) an update
on NIST manufacturing initiatives, and
(3) an update on MEP centers’
implementation of key initiatives. The
agenda may change to accommodate
other Board business.
Individuals and representatives of
organizations who would like to offer
comments and suggestions related to the
MEP Advisory Board’s business are
invited to request a place on the agenda.
Approximately 15 minutes will be
reserved for public comments at the
beginning of the meeting. Speaking
times will be assigned on a first-come,
first-served basis. The amount of time
per speaker will be determined by the
number of requests received but is likely
to be no more than three to five minutes
each. Questions from the public will not
be considered during this period.
Speakers who wish to expand upon
their oral statements, those who had
wished to speak but could not be
accommodated on the agenda, and those
who were unable to attend in person are
invited to submit written statements to
the MEP Advisory Board, National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–4800, or
via fax at (301) 963–6556, or
electronically by email to
Karen.Lellock@nist.gov.
All visitors to the NIST site are
required to pre-register to be admitted.
Please submit your name, time of
arrival, email address and phone
number to Karen Lellock by 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time, Wednesday, August 22,
2012. Non-U.S. citizens must also
submit their country of citizenship, title,
employer/sponsor, and address. Ms.
Lellock’s email address is
Karen.Lellock@nist.gov and her phone
number is (301) 975–4269.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50469
Dated: August 15, 2012.
Kevin Kimball,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2012–20529 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Notice of Public Workshop:
‘‘Designing for Impact III: Workshop on
Building the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation’’
Advanced Manufacturing
National Program Office, National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Advanced Manufacturing
National Program Office (AMNPO),
housed at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST),
announces the third workshop in a
series of public workshops entitled
‘‘Designing for Impact: Workshop on
Building the National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation.’’ This
workshop series provides a forum for
the AMNPO to introduce the National
Network for Manufacturing Innovation
(NNMI) and its regional components,
Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation
(IMIs), and for public discussion of this
new initiative that was announced by
President Obama on March 9, 2012.1
The discussion at the workshop will
focus on the following topics:
Technologies with Broad Impact,
Institute Structure and Governance,
Strategies for Sustainable Institute
Operations, and Education and
Workforce Development.
The Designing for Impact workshop
series is organized by the federal
interagency AMNPO, in cooperation
with stakeholders and local
organizations. AMNPO partner agencies
include the Department of Commerce,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST); Department of
Defense; Department of Energy’s
Advanced Manufacturing Office;
Department of Labor; National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA); and National Science
Foundation. Local hosts and coorganizers for the third workshop event
include the National Academy of
Engineering (NAE), the National
Academies of Sciences and
Engineering’s University-Industry
SUMMARY:
1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2012/03/09/remarks-president-manufacturing-andeconomy.
E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM
21AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50465-50469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-485-805]
Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line
and Pressure Pipe From Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small
diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe
from Romania. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman S.A. (AMTP). The
period of review (POR) is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. We
preliminarily determine that AMTP did not sell the subject merchandise
at less than normal value during the POR. We invite interested parties
to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: August 21, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Schauer or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0410 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 10, 2000, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard,
line and pressure pipe (small diameter seamless pipe) from Romania.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small Diameter
Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From
Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 31, 2011, pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), AMTP, a Romanian
producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, requested an
administrative review of itself. On October 3, 2011, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we published a notice of initiation of
administrative review of the order.\2\ We are conducting the
administrative review of the order in accordance with section 751(a) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
61076 (October 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2012, the petitioner, United States Steel
Corporation (the petitioner) alleged that AMTP made sales of small
diameter seamless pipe from Romania at prices below the cost of
production (COP) in its home market during the POR.\3\ The Department
determined that this allegation was timely filed in accordance with 19
CFR 351.301(d)(2)(ii). On February 24, 2012, we initiated a sales-
below-cost investigation with respect to AMTP.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See letter from the petitioner dated January 30, 2012.
\4\ See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach dated February 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this review, the products covered include small
diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel
standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or
equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-
53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-
795, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and
meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of
application. The scope of this review also include all products used in
standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical
parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically
included within the scope of this review are seamless pipes and redraw
hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside
diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot
finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.
The merchandise subject to this review is typically classified in
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.19.10.20,
7304.19.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16,
7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32,
7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10,
7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under
review is dispositive.
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes
are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals,
chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in
industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated
pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of
external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-
106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees
Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be
used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-
106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly
produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53
specification and generally are not intended for high temperature
service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other
[[Page 50466]]
liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning
units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard
pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated
temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If
exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated,
standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334
specifications.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and
natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are
produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe
for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of
water.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-
106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid
maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories,
manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by
meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required
tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors
sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a
single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or
quadruple certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries,
petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in
power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in
some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator
lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this
product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial
applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market
for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used
in some boiler applications.
Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or ``hollow profiles'' of
carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/
hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold
under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM
A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.
The scope of this review includes all seamless pipe meeting the
physical parameters described above and produced to one of the
specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or
not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and
pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining
characteristics of the scope of these reviews. Therefore, seamless
pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the
ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589,
ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a
standard, line, or pressure application.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe
which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be
used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include
ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523,
ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard,
line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the
scope of this review.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this review are boiler
tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM
A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM
A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or
pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG
are excluded from the scope of this review, if covered by the scope of
another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by
such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this
scope when used in standard, line, or pressure applications.
Fair-Value Comparisons
To determine whether AMTP's sales of small diameter seamless pipe
from Romania were made in the United States at less than normal value,
we compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value as
described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In these preliminary results, the Department applied the
weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (``Final Modification
for Reviews''). In particular, the Department compared monthly
weighted-average CEPs with monthly weighted-average normal values
and granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of
the weighted average dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When making this comparison in accordance with section 771(16) of
the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as
described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section of this notice, above,
that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining
an appropriate product comparison to the U.S. sale. If an identical
home-market model with identical physical characteristics as described
below was reported, we made comparisons to weighted-average home-market
prices that were based on all sales of the identical product during a
contemporaneous month. If there were no contemporaneous sales of an
identical model, we identified sales of the most similar merchandise
that were most contemporaneous with the U.S. sale in accordance with 19
CFR 351.414(f).
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we compared products
produced by AMTP and sold in the U.S. and home markets on the basis of
the comparison product which was closest in terms of the physical
characteristics to the product sold in the United States. In the order
of importance, these characteristics are specification/grade,
manufacturing process, outside diameter, wall thickness, surface
finish, and end finish.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that,
normally, the Department will use the date of invoice, as recorded in
the producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale. The regulation provides further that the
Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date
on which the material terms of sale are established. The Department has
a long-standing practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes
invoice date, shipment date better reflects the date on which the
material terms of sale are established.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR
76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 10; see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From Germany,
67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all U.S. sales, AMTP reported the date of shipment from the
mill in Romania as the date of sale because the date of shipment
preceded the invoice date. With respect to AMTP's U.S. sales, price and
quantity are subject to change until the merchandise is shipped from
the mill in Romania. Because the material terms of sale are established
at shipment, prior to invoicing, we have
[[Page 50467]]
used the date of sale as reported by AMTP.
AMTP reported the earlier of shipment date or invoice date for its
home market sales. With respect to AMTP's home market sales, price and
quantity are subject to change until invoicing, except where invoicing
occurs after shipment, in which case the material terms are set when
the product is shipped. Accordingly, we have used the date of sale as
reported by AMTP.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for AMTP
because the subject merchandise was sold in the United States by a U.S.
seller affiliated with the producer.
We calculated CEP based on the delivered price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We also made deductions for any
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we calculated the CEP
by deducting selling expenses associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States, which includes direct selling expenses
and indirect selling expenses. Finally, we made an adjustment for
profit allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3)
of the Act.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal
value (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S.
sales), we compared the volume of AMTP's home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of subject
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
Based on this comparison, we determined that AMTP had a viable home
market during the POR. Consequently, we based normal value on home
market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual commercial
quantities in the ordinary course of trade and sales made to affiliated
purchasers where we find prices were made at arm's length, described in
detail below.
Cost of Production
Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegation, we found that
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the
foreign like product in the home market were made at prices below their
COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a
sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales were made at
prices below their respective COP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach dated February 24, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the
foreign like product plus an amount for general and administrative
expenses, and financial expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted
by AMTP with one exception: We increased the reported costs using the
major-input adjustment for an affiliated-party input pursuant to
section 773(f)(3) of the Act.\8\ We examined the cost data and
determined that our quarterly cost methodology is not warranted, and,
therefore, we have applied our standard methodology of using annual
costs based on the reported data, adjusted as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Memorandum to Neal Halper from Kristin Case entitled
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments
for the Preliminary Determination--ArcelorMittal Tubular Products
Roman S.A.,'' dated August 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as
required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether the
sales were made at prices below the COP. We compared model-specific
COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable movement
charges, discounts and rebates, selling and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less
than the COP, we do not disregard any below cost sales of that product
because we determine that the below cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were at prices
less than COP, we determine that such sales have been made in
``substantial quantities'' and, thus, we disregard below cost sales.\9\
Further, we determine that the sales were made within an extended
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
because we examine below cost sales occurring during the entire POR.
Because we are applying our standard annual-average cost test in these
preliminary results, we have also applied our standard cost-recovery
test with no adjustments. In such cases, because we compare prices to
POR-average costs, we also determine that such sales were not made at
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, we found that, for certain specific products, more
than 20 percent of AMTP's home market sales were at prices less than
the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery
of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we disregarded
these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining
normal value in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
We based normal value on the starting prices to home market
customers. We made adjustments for differences in packing and for
movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of
the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in cost attributable
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, and for
differences in circumstances of sale in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses
from normal value.
Affiliation
The Department may calculate normal value based on a sale to an
affiliated party only if it is satisfied that the price to the
affiliated party is comparable to the price at which sales are made to
parties not affiliated with the exporter or producer, i.e., sales were
made at arm's-length prices.\10\ We exclude from our analysis
transactions to affiliated customers for consumption in the home market
that we determine were not sold at arm's-length prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.403(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To test whether AMTP's sales to affiliated parties were made at
arm's-length prices, we compared the prices of sales of comparable
merchandise to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all
rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with our practice, when
the prices charged to an affiliated party were, on average, between 98
and 102 percent of the prices charged to unaffiliated parties
[[Page 50468]]
for merchandise comparable to that sold to the affiliated party, we
determined that the sales to the affiliated party were at arm's-length
prices.\11\ We preliminarily find that all of AMTP's sales to
affiliated parties were made at arm's-length prices and we included
them in our calculation of normal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Trade
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of
trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer
and the unaffiliated customer.
During the POR, AMTP reported that it sold the foreign like product
in the home market through a single channel of distribution and that
the selling activities associated with all sales through this channel
of distribution did not differ. We found no evidence to contradict
AMTP's representations. Accordingly, we found that the home market
channel of distribution constituted a single level of trade.
All of AMTP's U.S. sales were CEP sales. We identified the level of
trade based on the price after the deduction of expenses and profit
under section 772(d) of the Act. Most of the selling activities are
performed by the U.S. affiliate and, after eliminating expenses and
profit associated with those selling activities, we found that AMTP
performed few selling activities and that the intensity levels for
these activities were very small in comparison to the intensity levels
for activities performed for the home market level of trade. Therefore,
we have concluded that CEP sales constitute a different level of trade
from the level of trade in the home market and that the home market
level of trade was at a more advanced stage of distribution than the
CEP level of trade.
We were unable to match CEP sales at the same level of trade in the
home market or to make a level-of-trade adjustment because there was no
level of trade in the home market equivalent to the CEP level of trade.
Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to
determine a level-of-trade adjustment and the home market level of
trade is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP, we made
a CEP-offset adjustment to NV for all such sales. The CEP offset was
the sum of indirect selling expenses incurred on home market sales up
to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the U.S. sales.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that no
dumping margin exists for AMTP for the period August 1, 2010, through
July 31, 2011.
Disclosure and Comment
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this review within five days of the date of publication of this
notice.\12\ Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.\13\ If a
hearing is requested, the Department will notify interested parties of
the hearing schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
\13\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results of this review. Interested parties may submit case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.\14\ Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this
notice.\15\ Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic
version included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\15\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the case
briefs, within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results
are published.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall
determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If AMTP's weighted-
average dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this
review, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the
basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated
for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the
sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If AMTP's weighted-
average dumping margin continues to be zero or de minimis in the final
results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of
AMTP's entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews,
i.e., ``where the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter
is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be
assessed.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Final Modification for Reviews, 77 FR at 8102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification applies to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by AMTP where AMTP did not know
that its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the
all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies)
involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the date of publication of the final results of this
administrative review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for
all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
AMTP will be the rate established in the final results of this review;
(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review or the less-than-fair-value investigation but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established
for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 13.06 percent, the all-others rate established in Notice
of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy
Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 65 FR 48963
(August 10, 2000). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
[[Page 50469]]
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 14, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-20537 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
