Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India and Turkey: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Countervailing Duty Investigations, 4333-4335 [2014-01505]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Notices
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213.
Dated: January 16, 2014.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in
the Preliminary Decision Memorandum
1. Summary
2. Background
3. Scope of the Order
4. Intent To Partially Rescind Administrative
Review
5. Subsidies Valuation Information
6. Analysis of Programs
[FR Doc. 2014–01499 Filed 1–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–858, C–489–817]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
From India and Turkey: Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances in the Countervailing
Duty Investigations
Enforcement and Compliance,
Formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Department) preliminarily determines
that critical circumstances exist for
imports of certain oil country tubular
goods (OCTG) from India and Turkey.
DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lingjun Wang at (202) 482–2316 (India)
or Jennifer Meek at (202) 482–2778
(Turkey), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On July 2, 2013, Petitioners 1 filed
antidumping duty (AD) and
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions
concerning imports of OCTG from, inter
alia, India and Turkey.2 The Department
1 Petitioners are Maverick Tube Corporation,
United States Steel Corporation, Boomerang Tube,
Energex Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group,
Northwest Pipe Company, Tejas Tubular Products,
TMK IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., and Welded Tube
USA Inc. (collectively, Petitioners).
2 See Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Petitions for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from
India, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:16 Jan 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
published the initiation of the
investigations on July 29, 2013,3 and
issued the preliminary determinations
on December 16, 2013.4
On December 18, 2013, Petitioners
filed amendments to the petitions,
pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)
and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that
critical circumstances exist with respect
to imports of OCTG.5 In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii), when a
critical circumstances allegation is
submitted later than 20 days before the
scheduled date of the preliminary
determination, the Department must
issue a preliminary finding within 30
days after Petitioners submit the
allegation.6
On December 30, 2013, the
Department requested that respondents
report their shipment data for a threeyear period ending in December 2013,
the month of the preliminary subsidies
determinations.7 On January 6, 7, 9 and
14, 2014, respondents submitted their
shipment data.
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department will preliminarily
determine that critical circumstances
exist in a CVD investigation if there is
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that: (A) the alleged countervailable
subsidy is inconsistent with the
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Agreement (SCM Agreement) (i.e., so
called ‘‘prohibited subsidies’’),8 and (B)
Republic of Turkey, Ukraine, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam’’ (July 2, 2013).
3 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From
India and Turkey: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations, 78 FR 45502 (July 29, 2013).
4 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From
India: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment of Final
Determination With Final Antidumping
Determination, 78 FR 77421 (December 23, 2013)
(Preliminary Determination India) and Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of
Turkey: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment of Final
Determination With Final Antidumping
Determination, 78 FR 77420 (December 23, 2013)
(Preliminary Determination Turkey).
5 See Letter from Petitioners, ‘‘Amendment to
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties: Oil Country Tubular Goods
from India’’ (December 18, 2013) (Amendment
India) and ‘‘Amendment to Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duties: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Turkey’’
(December 18, 2013) (Amendment Turkey).
6 Petitioners also alleged critical circumstances
exist with respect to imports of merchandise in the
companion AD investigations. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), the Department will issue
preliminary critical circumstances findings in those
investigations no later than the preliminary AD
determinations scheduled for February 13, 2014.
7 The Department requests three years of data in
order to identify seasonal fluctuations, if any.
8 See section 771(8)(A) of the Act. The SCM
Agreement is the agreement referred to in section
101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
19 U.S.C. § 3551(d)(12).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4333
there have been massive imports of the
subject merchandise over a relatively
short period.
The Alleged Countervailable Subsidy Is
Inconsistent With the SCM Agreement
The SCM Agreement prohibits
‘‘subsidies contingent, in law or in fact,
whether solely or as one of several other
conditions, upon export performance.’’ 9
In the India proceeding, based on
information the Government of India
and respondents reported, the
Department determined that subsidies
provided under the following four
programs are contingent upon export
performance and countervailable: (1)
Advance License Program/Advance
Authorization Program; (2) Export
Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG)
Program; (3) Pre-Shipment and PostShipment Export Financing; and, (4)
SGOM Sales Tax Program.10
In the Turkey proceeding, based on
information the Government of Turkey
and respondents reported, the
Department determined that subsidies
provided under the following two
programs are contingent upon export
performance and countervailable: (1)
Deductions from Taxable Income for
Export Revenue; and, (2) Export
Financing.11
There Have Been Massive Imports of
the Subject Merchandise Over a
Relatively Short Period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), the
Department will not consider imports to
be massive unless imports during a
relatively short period (comparison
period) have increased by at least 15
percent over imports in an immediately
preceding period of comparable
duration (base period). The Department
normally considers the comparison
period to begin on the date that the
proceeding began (i.e., the date the
petition was filed) and to end at least
three months later.12 Furthermore, the
Department may consider the
comparison period to begin at an earlier
time if it finds that importers, exporters,
or foreign producers had a reason to
believe that proceedings were likely
9 See
SCM Agreement, Article 3.1(a).
Preliminary Determination India and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum
at 14–21.
11 See Preliminary Determination Turkey and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum
at 10–12.
12 See 19 CFR 351.206(i). Since the Department
typically uses monthly import/shipment data in its
analysis, if a petition is filed in the first half of the
month, the Department’s practice has been to
consider the month in which the petition was filed
as part of the comparison period.
10 See
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
4334
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Notices
before the petition was filed.13 In
addition, the Department expands the
periods as more data are available.
Petitioners maintain that importers,
exporters, or foreign producers, through
industry media and conferences, had
reason to believe that the petitions were
likely two months before they were
filed. As such, Petitioners argue that the
comparison period should begin in May
2013, not July, when the petitions were
filed. Furthermore, supported by import
data published by the Department’s
Bureau of Census and the U.S.
International Trade Commission,
Petitioners claim that imports of OCTG
from India and Turkey increased by
50.92 percent and 25.76 percent,
respectively, between the base and
comparison periods.14
After reviewing the information
Petitioners submitted to support their
claims that parties had advance
knowledge of the petitions, we have
determined parties did not have reason
to believe that petitions were likely
until they were filed in July 2013.
Petitioners have presented evidence
which they claim shows that certain
parties considered these proceedings
likely or even ‘‘imminent.’’ The
evidence also refers specifically to AD
and CVD proceedings. Specifically,
Petitioners presented evidence of the
following:
Æ March 2013—Two trade lawyers
publish an article in Global Trade
Monitor (GTM), a publication of their
own law firm, stating proceedings
against Korea may come as soon as the
end of the month. Their analysis also
presents data for India, Turkey, Ukraine,
and Vietnam.15
Æ March 2013—The president of the
American Institute for International
Steel (AIIS) mentions the possibility of
proceedings against India, Turkey,
Vietnam, and ‘‘others’’ during an AIIS
luncheon in Houston.16
Æ April 2013—An article in American
Metal Market (AMM) reports that
proceedings against Korea are imminent
and mentions the possibility of
proceedings against ‘‘other Asian’’ and
‘‘Eastern European’’ countries.17
Æ May 2013—Another article in
AMM reports that proceedings against
Korea will be filed in July and mentions
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13 Id.
14 See Amendment India at 5 and Amendment
Turkey at 8.
15 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–32
and Exhibit Supp. III–157, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 1.
16 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–33
and Exhibit Supp. III–158, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 2.
17 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–34
and Exhibit Supp. III–159, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:16 Jan 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
the possibility of proceedings against
India, the Philippines, and Turkey,
among other countries.18
Æ June 2013—A third AMM article
reports that a ‘‘suspension deal’’ is
possible for Korea and that the end of
June (the end of the fiscal quarter) will
be a ‘‘decisive day’’ for the U.S. industry
to decide whether proceedings should
be filed against Korea, India, Turkey,
Ukraine, and Vietnam.19
However, all the evidence provided is
speculative and also demonstrates that
much doubt still existed. For example,
while the GTM article states
proceedings against Korea might be filed
by ‘‘the end of the month,’’ it also notes
rumors of such filings might be ‘‘empty
threats.’’ 20 Likewise, the AMM articles
use words such as ‘‘imminent’’ when
discussing proceedings against Korea,
but also refer to the U.S. industry as
‘‘mulling the possibility’’ of filing
petitions.21 The articles also quote
industry insiders noting that such
‘‘rumors’’ have been circulating for
years and that U.S. producers must first
decide whether their profits will
prevent an affirmative injury
determination before filing.22 In sum,
we preliminarily find that the evidence
does not rise to the level of showing that
importers or foreign exporters/
producers had reason to believe, prior to
the filing of the petitions, that a
proceeding was likely. Therefore, we
have relied on the periods before and
after the filing of the petitions in July in
determining whether imports have been
massive (i.e., January through June 2013
compared with July through December
2013).23
Respondents in both the India and
Turkey proceedings provided their
shipment data from April 2010 through
November or December 2013. After
analyzing the data submitted, we
determine imports from Jindal SAW
Limited (Jindal SAW) in the India
investigation were massive (i.e.,
increased by more than 15 percent
18 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–35
and Exhibit Supp. III–160, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 4.
19 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–36
and Exhibit Supp. III–161, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 5.
20 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–32
and Exhibit Supp. III–157, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 1.
21 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–34
and Exhibit Supp. III–159, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 3.
22 See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II–35
and Exhibit Supp. III–160, and Amendment Turkey
at Exhibit 4.
23 One respondent in the India investigation
stated its shipment data for December would be
provided at a later date. Therefore, we compared its
imports for the five-month periods February
through June and July through November.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
between the base and comparison
periods) over a relatively short period of
time within the context of 19 CFR
351.206(h). Imports from GVN Fuels
Limited (GVN), the other mandatory
respondent in the India investigation,
however, were not massive. Combining
Jindal SAW’s and GVN’s imports, we
determine imports from all other
producers/exporters likewise were not
massive. Both mandatory respondents,
Borusan lstikbal Ticaret and Borusan
Mannesmann Born Sanayi (Borusan)
and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S (Tosyali), in
the Turkey investigation had massive
imports according to our analysis, and
thus so did all other producers/
exporters. The details of our
calculations are contained in businessproprietary analysis memoranda.24
Final Critical Circumstances
Determinations
The Department will make final
determinations concerning critical
circumstances when we make final
subsidy determinations in these
investigations, currently scheduled for
April 29, 2014. All interested parties
will have the opportunity to address
these determinations further in case
briefs.
U.S. International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of
the Act, the Department will notify the
U.S. International Trade Commission
about these preliminary determinations.
Suspension of Liquidation
Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides
that in the case of an affirmative
preliminary CVD determination, any
suspension of liquidation shall apply
(or, if notice of suspension has already
been published, be amended to apply)
to unliquidated entries of merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the later of
(a) the date which is 90 days before the
date on which the suspension of
liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the
date on which notice of initiation of the
investigation was published. As
discussed above, we preliminarily find
that critical circumstances exist for
imports from India produced and/or
exported by Jindal SAW and imports
from Turkey produced and/or exported
by Borusan, Toscelik, and all other
24 See Memorandum to the File from Mark
Hoadley, Calculation of Increase of Imports Over a
Relatively Short Period of Time: CVD Investigation
of OCTG from India (January 17, 2014) and
Memorandum to the File from Mark Hoadley,
Calculation of Increase of Imports Over a Relatively
Short Period of Time: CVD Investigation of OCTG
from Turkey (January 17, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Notices
producers/exporters. However, we also
reached negative preliminary CVD
determinations for Jindal SAW in India
and also for Borusan, Toscelik, and all
others producers/exporters in Turkey.
Accordingly, there is no suspension of
liquidation of entries from these
entities.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: January 17, 2014.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014–01505 Filed 1–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; public meeting.
AGENCY:
The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) is rescheduling a public meeting of its
Herring Advisory Panel to consider
actions affecting New England fisheries
in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Recommendations from this group will
be brought to the full Council for formal
consideration and action, if appropriate.
DATES: This meeting will be held on
Thursday, February 13, 2014, at 10 a.m.
This meeting has been re-scheduled
from January 22, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, 50
Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923;
telephone: (978) 777–2500; fax: (978)
750–7959.
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Advisory Panel will discuss
development of a range of alternatives
for Framework 4 to the Atlantic Herring
FMP. Framework 4 will address the
disapproved elements of Amendment 5,
including provisions related to net
slippage and dealer weighing
requirements. The Advisory Panel will
review the January 14 Herring
Committee discussion/
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:16 Jan 24, 2014
Jkt 232001
recommendations and January 28–30,
2014 Council recommendations and
will develop related Herring AP
recommendations. The Advisory Panel
will also discuss development of the
NMFS-led Omnibus Amendment to
address industry-funded monitoring as
well as the timeline for Framework 4,
the omnibus industry-funded
amendment, and other 2014 herring
management priorities. Other business
may be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at
(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to
the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: January 22, 2014.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–01435 Filed 1–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XD095
Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council;
Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of a public meeting of the
South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (SAFMC) Oculina Experimental
Closed Area Evaluation Team.
AGENCY:
The Oculina Experimental
Closed Area Evaluation Team will
discuss the Oculina Experimental
Closed Area via webinar and a series of
breakout sessions. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4335
The webinar will be held on
Thursday, February 13, 2014, from 9
a.m. until 12 p.m., and the breakout
sessions will occur during the week of
March 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES:
Meeting address: The meeting will be
held via webinar. The webinar is open
to members of the public. Those
interested in participating should
contact Anna Martin at the SAFMC (see
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
below) to request an invitation
providing webinar access information.
Please request webinar invitations at
least 24 hours in advance of the
webinar.
Council address: South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, 4055
Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N.
Charleston, SC 29405.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anna Martin, Fishery Biologist;
telephone: (843) 571–4366; email:
anna.martin@safmc.net.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Evaluation Team is comprised of law
enforcement representatives, research
scientists, resource managers,
commercial fishermen, recreational
fishermen, outreach experts, and nongovernmental organization
representatives. The Team is tasked
with reviewing and providing
recommendations for the ongoing
research and monitoring, outreach, and
law enforcement components of the
Evaluation Plan.
The SAFMC extended the snapper
grouper bottom fishing restrictions for
the Oculina Experimental Closed Area
(OECA) for an indefinite period in
Snapper Grouper Amendment 13A. The
amendment required that the size and
configuration of the OECA be reviewed
within three years of the
implementation date of 13A and that a
10-year re-evaluation be conducted. The
re-evaluation is the subject of this
webinar.
The items of discussion during the
data webinar are as follows:
1. Participants will initiate
discussions on the re-evaluation of the
OECA.
2. Breakout sessions will be held with
the Evaluation Team to discuss
Research & Monitoring, Outreach, and
Law Enforcement components of the
Evaluation Team.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
identified in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM
27JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4333-4335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01505]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-858, C-489-817]
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India and Turkey:
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in the
Countervailing Duty Investigations
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily
determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of certain oil
country tubular goods (OCTG) from India and Turkey.
DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lingjun Wang at (202) 482-2316 (India)
or Jennifer Meek at (202) 482-2778 (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 2, 2013, Petitioners \1\ filed antidumping duty (AD) and
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of OCTG from,
inter alia, India and Turkey.\2\ The Department published the
initiation of the investigations on July 29, 2013,\3\ and issued the
preliminary determinations on December 16, 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioners are Maverick Tube Corporation, United States
Steel Corporation, Boomerang Tube, Energex Tube, a division of JMC
Steel Group, Northwest Pipe Company, Tejas Tubular Products, TMK
IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., and Welded Tube USA Inc. (collectively,
Petitioners).
\2\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Petitions for the Imposition
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Oil Country
Tubular Goods from India, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, the Republic of Turkey,
Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam'' (July 2, 2013).
\3\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India and Turkey:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 78 FR 45502 (July
29, 2013).
\4\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping
Determination, 78 FR 77421 (December 23, 2013) (Preliminary
Determination India) and Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the
Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final
Antidumping Determination, 78 FR 77420 (December 23, 2013)
(Preliminary Determination Turkey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 18, 2013, Petitioners filed amendments to the
petitions, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical
circumstances exist with respect to imports of OCTG.\5\ In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii), when a critical circumstances allegation
is submitted later than 20 days before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination, the Department must issue a preliminary
finding within 30 days after Petitioners submit the allegation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Amendment to Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Oil Country
Tubular Goods from India'' (December 18, 2013) (Amendment India) and
``Amendment to Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Turkey''
(December 18, 2013) (Amendment Turkey).
\6\ Petitioners also alleged critical circumstances exist with
respect to imports of merchandise in the companion AD
investigations. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), the
Department will issue preliminary critical circumstances findings in
those investigations no later than the preliminary AD determinations
scheduled for February 13, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 30, 2013, the Department requested that respondents
report their shipment data for a three-year period ending in December
2013, the month of the preliminary subsidies determinations.\7\ On
January 6, 7, 9 and 14, 2014, respondents submitted their shipment
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Department requests three years of data in order to
identify seasonal fluctuations, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in a CVD
investigation if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect
that: (A) the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement) (i.e.,
so called ``prohibited subsidies''),\8\ and (B) there have been massive
imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See section 771(8)(A) of the Act. The SCM Agreement is the
agreement referred to in section 101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 3551(d)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alleged Countervailable Subsidy Is Inconsistent With the SCM
Agreement
The SCM Agreement prohibits ``subsidies contingent, in law or in
fact, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon export
performance.'' \9\ In the India proceeding, based on information the
Government of India and respondents reported, the Department determined
that subsidies provided under the following four programs are
contingent upon export performance and countervailable: (1) Advance
License Program/Advance Authorization Program; (2) Export Promotion
Capital Goods (EPCG) Program; (3) Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export
Financing; and, (4) SGOM Sales Tax Program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See SCM Agreement, Article 3.1(a).
\10\ See Preliminary Determination India and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 14-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Turkey proceeding, based on information the Government of
Turkey and respondents reported, the Department determined that
subsidies provided under the following two programs are contingent upon
export performance and countervailable: (1) Deductions from Taxable
Income for Export Revenue; and, (2) Export Financing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Preliminary Determination Turkey and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There Have Been Massive Imports of the Subject Merchandise Over a
Relatively Short Period
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), the Department will not consider
imports to be massive unless imports during a relatively short period
(comparison period) have increased by at least 15 percent over imports
in an immediately preceding period of comparable duration (base
period). The Department normally considers the comparison period to
begin on the date that the proceeding began (i.e., the date the
petition was filed) and to end at least three months later.\12\
Furthermore, the Department may consider the comparison period to begin
at an earlier time if it finds that importers, exporters, or foreign
producers had a reason to believe that proceedings were likely
[[Page 4334]]
before the petition was filed.\13\ In addition, the Department expands
the periods as more data are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i). Since the Department typically uses
monthly import/shipment data in its analysis, if a petition is filed
in the first half of the month, the Department's practice has been
to consider the month in which the petition was filed as part of the
comparison period.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners maintain that importers, exporters, or foreign
producers, through industry media and conferences, had reason to
believe that the petitions were likely two months before they were
filed. As such, Petitioners argue that the comparison period should
begin in May 2013, not July, when the petitions were filed.
Furthermore, supported by import data published by the Department's
Bureau of Census and the U.S. International Trade Commission,
Petitioners claim that imports of OCTG from India and Turkey increased
by 50.92 percent and 25.76 percent, respectively, between the base and
comparison periods.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Amendment India at 5 and Amendment Turkey at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the information Petitioners submitted to support
their claims that parties had advance knowledge of the petitions, we
have determined parties did not have reason to believe that petitions
were likely until they were filed in July 2013. Petitioners have
presented evidence which they claim shows that certain parties
considered these proceedings likely or even ``imminent.'' The evidence
also refers specifically to AD and CVD proceedings. Specifically,
Petitioners presented evidence of the following:
[cir] March 2013--Two trade lawyers publish an article in Global
Trade Monitor (GTM), a publication of their own law firm, stating
proceedings against Korea may come as soon as the end of the month.
Their analysis also presents data for India, Turkey, Ukraine, and
Vietnam.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-32 and Exhibit
Supp. III-157, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] March 2013--The president of the American Institute for
International Steel (AIIS) mentions the possibility of proceedings
against India, Turkey, Vietnam, and ``others'' during an AIIS luncheon
in Houston.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-33 and Exhibit
Supp. III-158, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] April 2013--An article in American Metal Market (AMM) reports
that proceedings against Korea are imminent and mentions the
possibility of proceedings against ``other Asian'' and ``Eastern
European'' countries.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-34 and Exhibit
Supp. III-159, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] May 2013--Another article in AMM reports that proceedings
against Korea will be filed in July and mentions the possibility of
proceedings against India, the Philippines, and Turkey, among other
countries.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-35 and Exhibit
Supp. III-160, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] June 2013--A third AMM article reports that a ``suspension
deal'' is possible for Korea and that the end of June (the end of the
fiscal quarter) will be a ``decisive day'' for the U.S. industry to
decide whether proceedings should be filed against Korea, India,
Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-36 and Exhibit
Supp. III-161, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, all the evidence provided is speculative and also
demonstrates that much doubt still existed. For example, while the GTM
article states proceedings against Korea might be filed by ``the end of
the month,'' it also notes rumors of such filings might be ``empty
threats.'' \20\ Likewise, the AMM articles use words such as
``imminent'' when discussing proceedings against Korea, but also refer
to the U.S. industry as ``mulling the possibility'' of filing
petitions.\21\ The articles also quote industry insiders noting that
such ``rumors'' have been circulating for years and that U.S. producers
must first decide whether their profits will prevent an affirmative
injury determination before filing.\22\ In sum, we preliminarily find
that the evidence does not rise to the level of showing that importers
or foreign exporters/producers had reason to believe, prior to the
filing of the petitions, that a proceeding was likely. Therefore, we
have relied on the periods before and after the filing of the petitions
in July in determining whether imports have been massive (i.e., January
through June 2013 compared with July through December 2013).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-32 and Exhibit
Supp. III-157, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 1.
\21\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-34 and Exhibit
Supp. III-159, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 3.
\22\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-35 and Exhibit
Supp. III-160, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 4.
\23\ One respondent in the India investigation stated its
shipment data for December would be provided at a later date.
Therefore, we compared its imports for the five-month periods
February through June and July through November.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents in both the India and Turkey proceedings provided their
shipment data from April 2010 through November or December 2013. After
analyzing the data submitted, we determine imports from Jindal SAW
Limited (Jindal SAW) in the India investigation were massive (i.e.,
increased by more than 15 percent between the base and comparison
periods) over a relatively short period of time within the context of
19 CFR 351.206(h). Imports from GVN Fuels Limited (GVN), the other
mandatory respondent in the India investigation, however, were not
massive. Combining Jindal SAW's and GVN's imports, we determine imports
from all other producers/exporters likewise were not massive. Both
mandatory respondents, Borusan lstikbal Ticaret and Borusan Mannesmann
Born Sanayi (Borusan) and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S (Tosyali), in the
Turkey investigation had massive imports according to our analysis, and
thus so did all other producers/exporters. The details of our
calculations are contained in business-proprietary analysis
memoranda.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Memorandum to the File from Mark Hoadley, Calculation
of Increase of Imports Over a Relatively Short Period of Time: CVD
Investigation of OCTG from India (January 17, 2014) and Memorandum
to the File from Mark Hoadley, Calculation of Increase of Imports
Over a Relatively Short Period of Time: CVD Investigation of OCTG
from Turkey (January 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Critical Circumstances Determinations
The Department will make final determinations concerning critical
circumstances when we make final subsidy determinations in these
investigations, currently scheduled for April 29, 2014. All interested
parties will have the opportunity to address these determinations
further in case briefs.
U.S. International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will
notify the U.S. International Trade Commission about these preliminary
determinations.
Suspension of Liquidation
Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that in the case of an
affirmative preliminary CVD determination, any suspension of
liquidation shall apply (or, if notice of suspension has already been
published, be amended to apply) to unliquidated entries of merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the
suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which
notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As discussed
above, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for
imports from India produced and/or exported by Jindal SAW and imports
from Turkey produced and/or exported by Borusan, Toscelik, and all
other
[[Page 4335]]
producers/exporters. However, we also reached negative preliminary CVD
determinations for Jindal SAW in India and also for Borusan, Toscelik,
and all others producers/exporters in Turkey. Accordingly, there is no
suspension of liquidation of entries from these entities.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: January 17, 2014.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-01505 Filed 1-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P