Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61738-61739 [2012-25040]

Download as PDF 61738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–549–502] Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On April 6, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand.1 This review covers the respondents Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe) and Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the preliminary results, which are discussed below. For the final dumping margins, see the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. DATES: Effective Date: October 11, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5255 or (202) 482–4261, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background Since the preliminary results, the following events have taken place. Wheatland Tube Company, United States Steel Corporation, Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai submitted timely case briefs on July 16, 2012. Wheatland Tube Company, United States Steel Corporation, Allied Tube and Conduit and TMK IPSCO, Pacific Pipe, and Saha Thai filed timely rebuttal briefs on July 23, 2012. Period of Review The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Scope of the Order The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches 1 See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 20782 (April 6, 2012). VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in the industry as ‘‘standard pipe’’ or ‘‘structural tubing’’ are hereinafter designated as ‘‘pipes and tubes.’’ The merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Issues and Decision Memorandum’’ (Decision Memorandum), dated October 3, 2012, and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/ ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made adjustments to our margin calculations for Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai. For Pacific Pipe, with regard to the cost of production, we subtracted the cost of galvanizing in the instances where our methodology resulted in the selection of a galvanized product as the substitute for a non-galvanized product and added galvanizing where our methodology selected non-galvanized products as a substitute for galvanized products. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, ‘‘Cost of PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results—Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited,’’ dated October 3, 2012. For Pacific Pipe, we also revised coding in our margin program to correct an error in the Department’s comparison market program related to determining cost for products sold, but not produced, during the POR. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. For Saha Thai, we made the following adjustments for these final results. First, after reviewing the comments and examining all of the documentation on the record with respect to warehousing, we removed warehousing expenses and revenue from the calculation for these final results. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Second, we corrected a clerical error in Saha Thai’s U.S. margin calculation program which affects how we calculate the freight revenue cap. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. We have also made a number of corrections and adjustments to Saha Thai’s cost response which are discussed in the Decision Memorandum at Comments 6, 7, 8 and 9, and in the Memorandum to Neal Halper, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results—Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.,’’ dated October 3, 2012. Final Results of Review As a result of our review, we determine that the following weightedaverage margins exist for the period of March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011: Manufacturer/exporter Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd ........................ Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited ................................... Weightedaverage margin 0.92 8.23 Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importerspecific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). However, where the respondent did not report the entered value for its sales, we E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM 11OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2012 / Notices pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES have calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification applies to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all others rate from the investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company 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). Cash Deposit Requirements The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) For the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above in the section ‘‘Final Results of Review’’; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the companyspecific rate published in the most recent final results in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:03 Oct 10, 2012 Jkt 229001 these final results of review or in the most recent final results in which that producer participated; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 15.67 percent, the all-others rate established in the less than fair value investigation.2 These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: October 3, 2012. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in the Decision Memorandum Comment 1: U.S. Date of Sale for Saha Thai Comment 2: Adjustment for Duty Drawback Exemption for Saha Thai Comment 3: Freight Revenue Cap for Saha Thai Comment 4: Warehousing Expense for Saha Thai Comment 5: Actual-to-Theoretical Conversion Factor for Saha Thai’s Cost of Production Comment 6: Production Quantities for Saha Thai Comment 7: Treatment of Saha Thai’s Non2 See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (January 27, 1986). PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 61739 Prime Products in Calculating the Cost of Production Comment 8: Cost Reconciliation for Saha Thai Comment 9: Treatment of Painting Services from Saha Thai’s Affiliated Parties in the Cost of Production Comment 10: Correcting an Error in the Calculation of the Freight Revenue Cap for Saha Thai Comment 11: Duty Drawback Adjustment for Pacific Pipe Comment 12: Pacific Pipe’s Proposed Substitute Cost Methodology for Products Sold During the POR but Not Produced During the POR Comment 13: Correcting the Programming Error in Pacific Pipe’s Comparison Market Program [FR Doc. 2012–25040 Filed 10–10–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Application(s) for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Public Law 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States. Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be postmarked on or before October 31, 2012. Address written comments to Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in Room 3720. Docket Number: 12–036. Applicant: Michigan State University, 2555 Engineering Building Department of Mechanical Engineering, East Lansing, MI 48824–1226. Instrument: Diode Pumped High speed Nd:YAG laser system. Manufacturer: Edgewave GmbH, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used as a diagnostics equipment to study high temperature combustion occurring in a laboratory combustor with highly turbulent flows, specifically to detect chemical species of combustion in conditions that are similar to actual engine operating conditions. The system will be used to pump a dye laser to generate ultra-violet light which can be used to rack chemical species during combustion, such as hydroxyl (OH) radicals. The E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM 11OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61738-61739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25040]



[[Page 61738]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-502]


Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 
from Thailand.\1\ This review covers the respondents Pacific Pipe 
Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe) and Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) 
Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai). Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, we have made changes to the preliminary results, which are 
discussed below. For the final dumping margins, see the ``Final Results 
of Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 77 FR 20782 (April 6, 2012).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: October 11, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Andrew 
Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-5255 or (202) 482-4261, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Since the preliminary results, the following events have taken 
place. Wheatland Tube Company, United States Steel Corporation, Pacific 
Pipe and Saha Thai submitted timely case briefs on July 16, 2012. 
Wheatland Tube Company, United States Steel Corporation, Allied Tube 
and Conduit and TMK IPSCO, Pacific Pipe, and Saha Thai filed timely 
rebuttal briefs on July 23, 2012.

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2010, through February 28, 
2011.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject 
merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not 
exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in 
the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural tubing'' are 
hereinafter designated as ``pipes and tubes.'' The merchandise is 
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 
7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
our written description of the scope is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
this administrative review are addressed in the Memorandum to Paul 
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Christian 
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum), dated October 3, 2012, and hereby 
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision 
Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is a 
public document and is on file electronically via Import 
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to 
registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce 
building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. 
The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
adjustments to our margin calculations for Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai. 
For Pacific Pipe, with regard to the cost of production, we subtracted 
the cost of galvanizing in the instances where our methodology resulted 
in the selection of a galvanized product as the substitute for a non-
galvanized product and added galvanizing where our methodology selected 
non-galvanized products as a substitute for galvanized products. See 
Memorandum to Neal Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Final Results--Pacific Pipe Public 
Company Limited,'' dated October 3, 2012. For Pacific Pipe, we also 
revised coding in our margin program to correct an error in the 
Department's comparison market program related to determining cost for 
products sold, but not produced, during the POR. See Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 13.
    For Saha Thai, we made the following adjustments for these final 
results. First, after reviewing the comments and examining all of the 
documentation on the record with respect to warehousing, we removed 
warehousing expenses and revenue from the calculation for these final 
results. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Second, we corrected a 
clerical error in Saha Thai's U.S. margin calculation program which 
affects how we calculate the freight revenue cap. See Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 10. We have also made a number of corrections and 
adjustments to Saha Thai's cost response which are discussed in the 
Decision Memorandum at Comments 6, 7, 8 and 9, and in the Memorandum to 
Neal Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Final Results--Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) 
Company, Ltd.,'' dated October 3, 2012.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margins exist for the period of March 1, 2010, through 
February 28, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                   Manufacturer/exporter                       average
                                                                margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.................         0.92
Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited........................         8.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of 
this review. For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported the 
entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or 
customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of 
the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of those same sales. See 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). However, where the respondent did not report the entered 
value for its sales, we

[[Page 61739]]

have calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit 
assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total 
quantity of those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any 
importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of 
this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate, 
without regard to antidumping duties, any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis. The Department intends to issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the 
date of publication of these final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. This clarification applies to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by the companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed company did not know 
their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such 
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 
all others rate from the investigation if there is no rate for the 
intermediate company 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).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final 
results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act): (1) For the company covered by this review, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above in the section ``Final 
Results of Review''; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or 
exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment 
of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in 
which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is 
not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this 
proceeding, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that 
established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results 
of review or in the most recent final results in which that producer 
participated; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a 
firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this 
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 15.67 percent, the all-others 
rate established in the less than fair value investigation.\2\ These 
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes From Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (January 27, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 
written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these final results and this notice 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 3, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: U.S. Date of Sale for Saha Thai
Comment 2: Adjustment for Duty Drawback Exemption for Saha Thai
Comment 3: Freight Revenue Cap for Saha Thai
Comment 4: Warehousing Expense for Saha Thai
Comment 5: Actual-to-Theoretical Conversion Factor for Saha Thai's 
Cost of Production
Comment 6: Production Quantities for Saha Thai
Comment 7: Treatment of Saha Thai's Non-Prime Products in 
Calculating the Cost of Production
Comment 8: Cost Reconciliation for Saha Thai
Comment 9: Treatment of Painting Services from Saha Thai's 
Affiliated Parties in the Cost of Production
Comment 10: Correcting an Error in the Calculation of the Freight 
Revenue Cap for Saha Thai
Comment 11: Duty Drawback Adjustment for Pacific Pipe
Comment 12: Pacific Pipe's Proposed Substitute Cost Methodology for 
Products Sold During the POR but Not Produced During the POR
Comment 13: Correcting the Programming Error in Pacific Pipe's 
Comparison Market Program

[FR Doc. 2012-25040 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P