[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28828]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 22, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]

 

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, domestic 
producers of standard pipe products, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Thailand. The review period is March 1, 1992, through February 28, 
1993. This review involves one manufacturer/exporter of this 
merchandise to the United States, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. 
(Saha Thai). As a result of the review, we have preliminarily 
determined that dumping margins exist with respect to this 
manufacturer/exporter.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Yacura or Zev Primor, Office of 
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 12, 1993, the 
Department published a notice in the Federal Register notifying 
interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative 
review of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Thailand (57 FR 13583). On March 30, 1993, the domestic producers 
(Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular Division of Armco, 
Inc., American Tube Company, Inc., Laclede Steel Company, Sharon Tube 
Company, Wheatland Tube Company, and Eagle Pipe Company) requested, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) of the Department's regulations, that 
we conduct an administrative review for the period March 1, 1992, 
through February 28, 1993. We published a notice of initiation of the 
antidumping duty administrative review on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960).
    The Department is now conducting a review for this period in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are shipments of 
certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The 
subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inch 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 ``pipe and tube.'' The merchandise is 
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 
7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. The item numbers are provided for 
convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.
    The review covers shipments made by Saha Thai from Thailand to the 
United States during the period of review March 1, 1992, through 
February 28, 1993 (POR).

United States Price

    In calculating U.S. price (USP), the Department used purchase 
price, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise 
was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation. Purchase 
price was based on the packed FOB or C&F price to unrelated purchasers 
in the United States. The review included all of Saha Thai's U.S. sales 
that entered the United States during the POR. We made deductions from 
the unit price, where applicable, for ocean freight, bank charges, 
foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and customs clearing 
expenses (brokerage). We made an addition to USP for duty drawback. 
Additionally, we adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice 
as outlined in Siliconmanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 
1994.
    No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of pipe 
and tube in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
foreign market value (FMV), we compared the volume of home market sales 
to the volume of third-country sales, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Saha Thai had sufficient home market sales of 
the subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, we based FMV on Saha 
Thai's sales in the home market.
    We did not include home market sales of pipe and tube made to the 
specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM 
pipe) in our FMV calculation because we determined that such sales were 
outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 U.S.C. 1677(15) and 
1677b(a)(1). Rather, we included only sales of pipe and tube made to 
British Standard specifications (BS pipe). In determining that Saha 
Thai's sales of ASTM pipe in the home market were outside the ordinary 
course of trade, we did not rely on one factor taken in isolation, but 
rather considered all the circumstances particular to the sales in 
question. In reviewing the evidence for this review, we based our 
decision upon (1) the different standards and product uses of ASTM 
pipes and BS pipes; and (2) the comparative volume of sales and number 
of buyers of ASTM pipes and BS pipes in the home market during the POR.
    Saha Thai indicated that the ASTM pipes sold in the home market 
during the POR were produced on the basis of special orders or special 
projects in which the entire project was supplied with ASTM standard 
pipes. In addition, ASTM pipes and BS pipes cannot be coupled together. 
Therefore, ASTM pipe cannot be used in most pipe systems in Thailand 
and cannot be used to replace most existing pipe systems in Thailand. 
Finally, sales of ASTM pipe constituted a small volume of total Saha 
Thai's sales of pipe and tube in the home market, and the customers 
purchasing ASTM pipe in the home market were limited primarily to new, 
stand-alone government projects.
    Accordingly, we determined that sales of ASTM pipe in the home 
market were outside the ordinary course of trade, and therefore did not 
use these sales in our calculation of FMV.
    Based on findings in the 1988-89 review that home market sales of 
the subject merchandise were made by Saha Thai at prices below the cost 
of production (COP), the Department conducted a cost investigation in 
this review. In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
353.51 of the Department's regulations, we examined whether home market 
sales were made below cost and in substantial quantities over an 
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices 
which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time in the normal course of trade. We calculated Saha Thai's COP as 
the sum of all reported materials costs, labor expenses, factory 
overhead, and general and selling expenses for the three types of pipe 
and tube that were sold in the home market during the POR (galvanized 
plain-end, black plain-end, and galvanized threaded-and-coupled). We 
compared COP to home market prices net of discounts, foreign inland 
freight, and an adjusted business tax, or value-added tax, depending on 
the time of sale.
    For each model where less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home 
market sales during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we 
included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each 
model where 10 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the home 
market sales during the POR were priced below the merchandise's COP, we 
excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were 
below the merchandise's COP, provided that these below-cost sales were 
made over an extended period of time. For each model where 90 percent 
or more of the home market sales during the POR were priced below the 
COP and were made over an extended period of time, we disregarded all 
sales of that model from our calculation of FMV and used the 
constructed value (CV) of those models as described below.
    To determine whether sales below cost had been made over an 
extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which 
sales below cost occurred for a particular type of pipe and tube to the 
number of months in which that type was sold. If the type was sold in 
fewer than three months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless 
there were below-cost sales of that type in each month sold. If a type 
was sold in three or more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales 
unless there were sales below cost in at least three of the months in 
which the type was sold.
    Since Saha Thai has not submitted any information indicating that 
any of its sales below cost were at prices which would have permitted 
``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the 
normal course of trade,'' as required by section 773(b)(2) of the Act, 
we are unable to conclude that the costs of production of such sales 
have been recovered within a reasonable period. As a result, we 
disregarded below-cost sales made over an extended period of time.
    Using the remaining sales, the Department calculated FMV on a 
monthly weighted-average basis. Home market prices were based on the 
price to unrelated purchasers. Where applicable, we made adjustments 
for transportation discounts, foreign inland freight, packing expenses, 
and business tax, or value-added tax, depending on the date of sale. We 
also made adjustments to FMV for differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, packing, credit expenses, and 
warranty expenses.
    We used CV as FMV to compare to those U.S. sales for which there 
were insufficient home market sales at or above the COP. Pursuant to 
section 773(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.50(a) of the Department's 
regulations, CV consisted of the sum of materials, overhead, labor, 
U.S. packing, general and administrative expenses, and profit for each 
of the four types of pipe and tube sold in the United States during the 
POR (black plain-end, galvanized plain-end, galvanized threaded-and-
coupled, and black threaded-and-coupled). Since Saha Thai's actual 
selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and actual profits 
were greater than the statutory minima for SG&A and profit as provided 
in section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act, we used the SG&A and profit 
reported by Saha Thai. We adjusted CV for selling, credit, and packing 
expenses.

Preliminary Results

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margin to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd.........     3/1/92-2/28/93      5.83 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
publication of this notice and any interested party may request a 
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first workday 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the 
date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs or comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 
from Thailand, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the publication date of the final results of this 
administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
The cash deposit rate for Saha Thai will be that established in the 
final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in 
the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or previous 
reviews, the cash deposit will continue to be the rate published in the 
final determination or the last final results for which the 
manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final 
results of this review, a previous review, or the original 
investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is 
a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate 
will be the ``all others rate'' from the LTFV investigation.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and 
Federal-Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, 
822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that once an ``all others'' rate 
is established for a company, it can only be changed through an 
administrative review. The Department has determined that, in order to 
implement these decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the original 
``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation (or that rate as 
amended for correction for clerical errors or as a result of 
litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty orders for the 
purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current and future 
administrative reviews.
    Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty order, 
the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 15.67 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the Department's final 
determination of sales at LTFV (51 FR 3384, January 27, 1986).
    There is a countervailing duty order on certain circular welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (50 FR 32751, August 15, 
1985). In accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act, entries 
subject to both antidumping duties and countervailing duties will not 
be assessed antidumping duties on the portion of the margin 
attributable to export subsidies. Because the amount of countervailing 
duties to be imposed on entries during the POR has yet to be 
determined, we cannot at this time make the appropriate adjustment. 
However, to ensure that the appropriate adjustment is made, upon 
issuing our final results of the administrative review, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs not to assess antidumping duties on the margin 
attributable to export subsidies for the POR.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary of the Department's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: November 14, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-28828 Filed 11-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P