[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