[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18901-18904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9100]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-502]


Certain 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 requests by a Thai manufacturer, Saha Thai 
Steel Company, Ltd. (``Saha Thai''), two importers, Ferro Union Inc. 
(``Ferro Union'') and ASOMA Corp. (``ASOMA''), and three domestic 
producers, Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular 
Division--AK Steel Inc., and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively, the 
``petitioner''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. This review 
covers Saha Thai, a Thai manufacturer and exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review (``POR'') is 
March 1, 1999, through February 29, 2000.
    We have preliminary determined that the respondent did not sell 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during the POR. 
For information on the weighted average dumping margins, see the 
``Preliminary Results of Review'' section below. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
to liquidate appropriate entries during the POR without regard to 
antidumping duties.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos or Samantha 
Denenberg, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Room 7866, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2243 and (202) 482-1386, respectively.
    Applicable Statute: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 
the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, 
the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 
(``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to those codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  

Background

    On March 11, 1986, the Department published, in the Federal 
Register, an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 16, 2000, the 
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order covering the period March 1, 1999, 
through February 29, 2000 (65 FR 14242). Timely requests for an 
administrative review of the antidumping order with respect to sales by 
Saha Thai during the POR were filed by Saha Thai, Ferro Union and 
ASOMA, and the petitioners. The Department published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on May 1, 
2000 (65 FR 25303).
    Because the Department determined that it was not practicable to 
complete this review within the statutory time limits, on November 20, 
2000, we published, in the Federal Register, a notice of extension of 
the time limit for this review (65 FR 69734). As a result, we extended 
the deadline for these preliminary results to March 31, 2001; however, 
because this date falls on a non-business day, the preliminary results 
are actually due on April 2, 2001. Unless extended, the deadline for 
the final results will be 120 days after publication of these 
preliminary results.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are certain 
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.

[[Page 18902]]

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. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of the order is dispositive.

Date of Sale

    Saha Thai reported invoice date as the date of sale. Invoice date 
is also the Department's presumptive date for date of sale (see section 
351.401(i) of the Department's regulations), but in the last 
administrative review of this proceeding, we determined that contract 
date better represented the date of sale because it better reflected 
the date on which the material terms of sale, i.e., price and quantity, 
were established. For purposes of this review, we also have examined 
whether invoice date or some other date better represents the date on 
which the material terms of sale were established. The Department has 
examined sales documentation, including contracts and invoices, 
provided by Saha Thai for its U.S. sales, and has found that the 
material terms of sale are set at the contract date. Specifically, 
changes in quantity were within the specified contract tolerances and 
as such were not material. Unit prices for the products themselves did 
not change between the contract and invoice on any of the sales 
examined. For the business proprietary details of our analysis of the 
date of sale issue, see the Memorandum from Javier Barrientos through 
Sally C. Gannon for The file Regarding Date of Sale Analysis--Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand for the Period March 
1, 1999 through February 29, 2000, dated April 2, 2001 (public version 
on file in the Department's Central Records Unit). As such, we 
preliminarily determine that contract date is the appropriate date of 
sale in this administrative review because it better represents the 
date upon which the material terms of sale were established. With 
respect to home market sales, the invoice is the first written document 
that establishes the material terms of sale. Therefore, we are using 
the invoice date as the date of sale for home market sales.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of steel pipes and tubes from Thailand 
to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the EP to 
the NV for Saha Thai as specified in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) 
of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and 
compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price

    Based upon our review of the record evidence, we classified all 
Saha Thai sales to U.S. customers as EP sales because, as in previous 
segments of this proceeding, we found that Saha Thai is not affiliated 
with its U.S. distributors, which are the first purchasers in the 
United States. Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and tubes From 
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,  61 
FR 56515 (November 1, 1996). Therefore, we calculated the EP based on 
the price from Saha Thai to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
    Where appropriate,in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, 
we made deductions from the gross price for ocean freight to the U.S. 
port, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, foreign 
inland insurance, bill of lading charge, U.S. duty and U.S. brokerage 
and handling charges. In addition, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act, we have made an adjustment for duty drawback.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we 
compared the volume of Saha Tahi's home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Based on this comparison, 
we determined that the aggregate volume of Saha Thai's home market 
sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent of the 
aggregate volume of Saha Thai's U.S. sales. Thus, we determined that 
Saha Thai had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we 
based NV on home market sales.
    We applied the standard arm's length test to Saha Thai's sales to 
affiliated parties. Where Saha Thai's sales to affiliated parties were 
not made at arm's length prices, we excluded these sales from our home 
market normal value calculation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Saha Thai had made home 
market sales at prices below its cost of production (``COP'') in this 
review because the Department had disregarded sales that failed the 
cost test in the 1997-1998 administrative review (i.e., the most 
recently completed review at the time we issued our antidumping 
questionnaire) (63 FR 55578; October 21, 1999). As a result, the 
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Saha Thai 
made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP. We 
calculated the COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and packing costs, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
    For these preliminary results we are using respondent's reported 
COP. We compared the COP figures to home market sales of the foreign 
like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. On 
a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, 
less any applicable movement charges and discounts.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices 
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, because we 
compared prices to POR weight-averaged costs, we also determined that 
such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost 
sales.
    Where appropriate, we adjusted Saha Thai's home market sales for 
discounts, direct selling expenses and inland freight. In addition, in 
accordance with

[[Page 18903]]

section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, U.S. imputed credit, bank charges, and penalty fees.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value (CV) as the basis for NV when there were no 
contemporaneous sales of identical or similar merchandise in the 
comparison market that passed the cost test. We calculated CV, in 
accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, based on the sum of Saha 
Thai's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 
SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by Saha 
Thai in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign 
country. For selling expenses, we used the average of the selling 
expenses reported for home market sales that passed the cost test, 
weighted by the total quantity of those sales. For profit, we first 
calculated the difference between the home market sales value and home 
market COP, and divided the difference by the home market COP. We then 
multiplied this percentage by the COP for each U.S. model to derive a 
profit amount.

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action, to the extent practicable, we 
determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level 
of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or the constructed export price (``CEP''). 
The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sale in the comparison market 
or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive 
selling, general and administrative expenses and profit. For EP, the 
U.S. LOT is the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from 
exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale 
from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    For the U.S. market, Saha Thai reported only one LOT for its EP 
sales. This single LOT represents large volume sales to unaffiliated 
trading companies/distributors in the United States. In the home 
market, Saha Thai claimed that it made sales at one LOT. These sales 
were made to unaffiliated trading companies and distributors (made at 
the same LOT as U.S. sales). There are no significant differences in 
the selling functions Saha Thai performs for these customers in the 
home market or in the United States. Therefore, we conclude that EP and 
NV sales are made at the same LOT and no adjustment is warranted.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Section 
773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate 
in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless the 
daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's practice to 
find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs 
from the benchmark rate by more than 2.25 percent. The benchmark is 
defined as the moving average of the actual daily exchange rates for 
the eight weeks immediately prior to the date of the actual daily 
exchange rate. When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we 
substitute the benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with 
established practice. See Change in Policy Regarding Currency 
Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
           Manufactuer/exporter                  Period        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd.........    3/1/99-2/29/00        0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we calculated importer-specific ad-valorem duty 
assessment rates for the class or kind of merchandise based on entered 
value. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon the 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: 
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (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 the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit 
rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.67 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
investigation, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986). These requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.
    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of 
review within 5 days after publication of these preliminary results in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 
section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would 
normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice or the 
first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals 
who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 
days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) 
The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of 
the arguments to be raised at the hearing. Unless otherwise notified by 
the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 
351.309(c)(2)

[[Page 18904]]

of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are 
encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must 
be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing 
is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only 
on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a 
rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's 
rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and 
place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    This notice serves as a preliminary 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 Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Effective 
January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 12, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-9100 Filed 4-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M