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 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to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of blends of honey and rice syrup, from the PRC that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 7, 2011, the date of initiation of this anticircumvention inquiry.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 http://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