Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61738-61739 [2012-25040]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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
