[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16521-16525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7093]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-833, A-580-854, A-570-897]


Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain 
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Mexico, The Republic of 
Korea, and the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer at 202-482-0405 or John 
Drury at 202-482-0195, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation of Investigations

The Petition

    On March 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received an Antidumping Duty Petition filed in proper form by American 
Steel Pipe Division of American Cast Iron Pipe Company, IPSCO Tubulars 
Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, Maverick Tube Corporation, Northwest 
Pipe Company, and Stupp Corporation (``Petitioners''). On March 15 and 
19, 2004, Petitioners submitted clarifications of the Petition. 
Petitioners are domestic producers of circular welded carbon quality 
line pipe (``Line Pipe''). In accordance with section 732(b) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleges 
imports of Line Pipe from Mexico, the Republic of Korea (``Korea'') and 
the People's Republic of China (``China'') are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the 
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry.
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed their Petition on 
behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the investigations they are 
presently seeking. See Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petition section below.

Scope of the Investigations

    These investigations cover circular welded carbon quality steel 
pipe of a

[[Page 16522]]

kind used for oil and gas pipelines, not more that 406.4 mm (16 inches) 
in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish 
(black, or coated with any coatings compatible with line pipe), and 
regardless of end finish (plain end, beveled ends for welding, threaded 
ends or threaded and coupled, as well as any other special end 
finishes), and regardless of stenciling.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
heading 7306 and subheadings 7306.10.10.10, 730610.10.50, 
7306.10.50.10, and 7306.10.50.50. The tariff classifications are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes; however, the written 
description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all 
interested parties to submit such comments within 20 days of 
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Import 
Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. This 
period of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department 
with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that the Department's industry support determination, which is 
to be made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on 
whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the 
petition. A petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers 
or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) 
more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act 
provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic 
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total 
production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll 
the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if 
there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or 
(ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling 
method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 
2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. 
United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988) (``the 
ITC does not look behind ITA's determination, but accepts ITA's 
determination as to which merchandise is in the class of merchandise 
sold at LTFV'').
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition.
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners' definition 
of the like product is all welded line pipe under 16 inches in 
diameter. See March 15, 2004, amended petition at 2. Based on our 
analysis of the information submitted in the Petition we have 
determined there is a single domestic like product, Line Pipe, which is 
defined further in the ``Scope of the Investigations'' section above, 
and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.
    In determining whether the domestic petitioner has standing, we 
considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with 
reference to the domestic like product as defined above in the ``Scope 
of the Investigations'' section. To establish standing, Petitioners 
first provided production data for the industry for the years 2000 
through 2002, obtained from the ITC. Petitioners also provided their 
own production data during the period 2000 through 2002. However, while 
Petitioners had their own production data for 2003, Petitioners did not 
have production data for the entire U.S. industry for the year 2003. 
Therefore, Petitioners provided their shipments of the domestic like 
product for the year 2003, and compared them to shipments of the 
domestic like product for the industry. Petitioners obtained domestic 
industry shipments from the American Iron and Steel Institute 
(``AISI'') for all line pipe not over 16'' in diameter and made 
adjustments for shipments of seamless line pipe. See Petition at 
Exhibit I-3 describing how this production data was obtained. In their 
March 15, 2004, amended petition, Petitioners demonstrated the 
correlation between shipments and production. See Exhibit A-8. Based on 
the fact that complete production data for year 2003 is unavailable, 
and that Petitioners have established a close correlation between 
shipment and production data, we have relied upon shipment data for 
purposes of measuring industry support.
    The Department considered it unreasonable to exclude all seamless 
line pipe from the shipments data because seamless line pipe can exceed 
16'' in diameter. Therefore the Department included seamless line pipe 
in the AISI data for line pipe not over 16'' in diameter, but 
determined that the Petitioners' share of total estimated U.S. 
shipments of the subject Line Pipe in year 2003 nevertheless 
represented over 50 percent of total domestic shipments. Therefore, the 
Department finds the domestic producers who support the Petition 
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic 
like product. In addition, as no domestic producers have expressed 
opposition to the Petition, the Department also finds the domestic 
producers who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of 
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of 
the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. 
For more information on our analysis and the data upon which we relied, 
see Antidumping Duty

[[Page 16523]]

Investigation Initiation Checklist (``Initiation Checklist''), dated 
March 23, 2004, Appendix II - Industry Support. Therefore, we find that 
Petitioners have met the requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A) of the 
Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations. The source or sources of data for the 
deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. and foreign market prices 
and cost of production (``COP'') and constructed value (``CV'') have 
been accorded treatment as business proprietary information. 
Petitioners' sources and methodology are discussed in greater detail in 
the business proprietary version of the Petition and in our Initiation 
Checklist. We corrected certain information contained in the Petition's 
margin calculations; these corrections are set forth in detail in the 
Initiation Checklist.

Periods of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') for Mexico and Korea will be 
January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, the four most-recently 
completed fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the month in which 
the Petition was filed. See 19 CFR 351.204(b). The POI for China will 
be July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, the two most-recently 
completed fiscal quarters as of the month preceding the month in which 
the Petition was filed. See 19 CFR 351.204(b).

Mexico

Export Price

    To calculate export price (``EP''), Petitioners used average unit 
values (``AUVs'') of U.S. imports for consumption of the subject 
merchandise and a U.S.-based price quote for Mexican imports of subject 
merchandise.
    For the calculation of EP using AUV, Petitioners calculated the 
AUVs for two sizes of subject merchandise, i.e., the AUV for sizes up 
to and including 4.5 inches outside diameter (``OD''), and the AUV for 
sizes above 4.5 inches OD but not greater than 16 inches OD. See 
Petition at Volume II, Exhibit II-7. The reported AUVs provide a value 
of subject imports based on free-alongside-ship (``FAS''), packed for 
delivery. Petitioners calculated net U.S. price by deducting foreign 
inland freight from a Mexican producer's factory to the Mexican/U.S. 
border, thus establishing an ex-factory price. See Petition at Exhibit 
II-5. The per mile freight charge, exclusive of VAT, is based on a 
price quote from the same Mexican producer, dated January 6, 2004. See 
Petition at Exhibit II-3. Petitioners converted Mexican pesos to U.S. 
dollars using the average exchange rate for the POI. See amended 
petition dated March 15, 2004, at page 1 and Exhibit A-3. The AUVs were 
reported in U.S. dollars per short ton ($/ST), and converted to metric 
tons for purposes of the margin calculation.
    To calculate EP using the quoted U.S. price, Petitioners obtained a 
price quote on subject merchandise sold by a U.S. distributor of Line 
Pipe produced in Mexico. The price information was for Line Pipe with a 
4 inch nominal (4.5 inch OD) by 0.224 inch wall thickness (``WT'') (the 
product for which Petitioners obtained a home market price quote), 
among other products. See Petition at Exhibit II-8. The quoted price 
includes freight to the United States on an FOB basis. The date of the 
price offering is contemporaneous with the POI.
    Petitioners converted the price to U.S. dollars per metric ton 
using the average exchange rate for the POI. Petitioners then deducted 
the inland freight and a distributor markup of three percent, 
applicable to the seller as a U.S. distributor of Mexican-produced 
subject merchandise. Petitioners reasonably based the distributor 
markup on one of the Petitioners' experience. See Petition at page II-4 
and Exhibit A-6 of the amended petition dated March 15, 2004. No other 
deductions were made from U.S. price.

Normal Value

    To calculate home market normal value (``NV''), Petitioners used 
price quotes obtained for two sizes of Line Pipe offered for sale in 
Mexico by a major Mexican producer. See Petition at Exhibit II-3. 
Petitioners calculated NV separately for each size of Line Pipe based 
on the price offering obtained from the Mexican producer. The quote did 
not include delivery charges. See Petition at page II-2 and Exhibit II-
5. No adjustments were made for packing costs in the home market.
    Petitioners converted Mexican home market prices from pesos per 
meter to pesos per metric ton and then to U.S. dollars per metric ton 
using the average exchange rate in effect during the POI. See amended 
petition dated March 15, 2004, at Exhibit A-3.
    The price-to-price margin calculation is between 24.16 percent and 
31.34. The price-to-AUV margin calculations range between 8.47 percent 
and 22.44 percent. See amended petition dated March 19, 2004, at 
Exhibit A2-2.
    Petitioners included COP and CV calculations in their Petition. 
However, Petitioners did not allege that the sales of certain circular 
welded carbon quality line pipe products in the Mexican home market 
were made at prices below the fully absorbed COP within the meaning of 
section 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, we are not initiating a cost 
investigation with respect to imports from Mexico at this time. 
Furthermore, section 773(a)(1) of the Act lays out a specific hierarchy 
for determining NV. Because petitioners obtained representative home 
market prices, we have not relied on the CV calculation for purposes of 
initiation. Accordingly, we are not including in the range of dumping 
margins any CV comparisons.

Korea

Export Price

    To calculate EP, Petitioners used two different prices: AUV of 
imports of subject merchandise from Korea, and a price offering of 
Korean imports based on an affidavit from the Vice President of Line 
Pipe Sales at Lone Star Steel Company describing a lost sale.
    For the calculation of EP using AUVs, Petitioners calculated AUVs 
for two sizes of subject merchandise, the AUV for sizes up to and 
including 4.5 inches OD, and the AUV for sizes above 4.5 inches OD but 
not greater than 16 inches OD. Petitioners calculated net U.S. price by 
deducting international freight from the price. See Exhibit II-6 of the 
petition and Exhibit A-4 of the amended petition dated March 15, 2004. 
Petitioners estimated ocean freight by subtracting the average unit FAS 
value of subject imports imported during the POI from the average unit 
cost, insurance and freight (``CIF'') value of subject imports imported 
during the POI, using the Bureau of the Census IM145 import statistics. 
See page II-4 and Exhibit II-6 of the Petition and page 13 and Exhibits 
A-4 and A-22 of the amended petition dated March 15, 2004.
    Petitioners converted the price to U.S. dollars per metric ton. 
Petitioners then deducted the estimated ocean freight in the same 
manner as used in the calculation using AUVs. No other deductions were 
made from U.S. price.

Normal Value

    To calculate home market NV, Petitioners used price quotes obtained 
by a consultant for two sizes of Line Pipe from two different Korean 
producers. See pages II-1 II-2 and Exhibit II-3 of the Petition. For 
the first producer, Petitioners calculated NV separately for each size 
of Line Pipe.

[[Page 16524]]

 Petitioners converted the ex-VAT per unit price to a Korean won price 
per metric ton, then deducted a distributor markup of three percent and 
converted the resulting net price to U.S. dollars using the average 
exchange rate for the POI. No adjustment was made for home market 
inland freight or for packing. Petitioners reasonably based the 
distributor markup on an affidavit from one of the petitioning Line 
Pipe manufacturers, which states that distributor markups are commonly 
at least three to five percent. See page II-3 and Exhibit II-2 of the 
petition and Exhibit A-6 of the amended petition dated March 15, 2004.
    For the second Korean producer, Petitioners converted the ex-VAT 
per unit price to a U.S. dollar price per metric ton for each of two 
sizes of Line Pipe. To convert to U.S. dollars, Petitioners used the 
average exchange rate for the POI. Petitioners then deducted credit 
expenses from the price at a rate of 6.2 percent, based on the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics 
published lending rate during December 2003, the month of the price 
quote. Petitioners reasonably based the credit expense deduction on the 
terms listed in the price quote. See page II-3 and Exhibit II-2 of the 
Petition and pages 1 and 14 and Exhibits A-1 and A-24 of the amended 
petition dated March 15, 2004, and Exhibit A2-4 of the amended petition 
dated March 19, 2004. No adjustment was made for home market inland 
freight or for packing.
    The price-to-price margin calculations range between 24.55 percent 
and 28.69 percent.
    The price-to-AUV margin calculations range between 36.60 percent 
and 42.26 percent.
    Petitioners stated that they had reason to believe that Line Pipe 
was sold in Korea at prices less than the COP. See Petition at page II-
1. To value hot rolled steel purchases in their calculation of COP, 
Petitioners used a price of 405,000 won per metric ton, the price 
listed by POSCO, a major Korean supplier of hot-rolled steel, in Metal 
Bulletin. See petition at Exhibit II-9. The Department determined that 
the price of 405,000 won per metric ton was not contemporaneous to the 
POI, and therefore requested that Petitioners recalculate COP based on 
the price of hot rolled steel in effect during the POI of 355,000 won 
per metric ton, a price also listed by POSCO in Metal Bulletin. See 
Second Supplemental Questionnaire to the Petition, dated March 18, 
2004, at page 2. Petitioners recalculated COP based on this revised 
price and noted in the amended petition dated March 19, 2004, at page 
4, that there are no longer any home market prices below COP. 
Consequently, we are not initiating a cost investigation with respect 
to imports from Korea at this time. Furthermore, section 773(a)(1) of 
the Act lays out a specific hierarchy for determining NV. Because 
petitioners obtained representative home market prices, we have not 
relied on the CV calculation for purposes of initiation. Accordingly, 
we are not including in the range of dumping margins any CV 
comparisons.

China

Export Price

    Petitioners identified the following four companies as producers 
and/or exporters of subject line pipe from China: Baoji OCTG Plant, 
Fanyu Zhujiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Jiling Jiyuan Steel Pipe Co., 
Ltd., and Shengli Petroleum Administrative Bureau Steel Pipe Plant. To 
calculate EP, Petitioners used AUVs from the Bureau of the Census IM145 
import statistics. Petitioners calculated AUVs for two sizes of subject 
merchandise, up to and including 4.5 inches OD, and above 4.5 inches OD 
but not greater than 16 inches OD. See Petition at pages II-5 to II-6 
and Exhibits II-2 and II-13. Petitioners deducted U.S. customs duty to 
arrive at a price net of customs duty. See amended petition dated March 
15, 2004, at A-6 to A-7 and Exhibits A-12 and A-13. Petitioners claim 
the reported AUVs provide an FAS value of subject imports, already 
packed and ready for delivery at the foreign port. See Petition at 
pages II-5 to II-6 and Exhibits II-2 and II-13, and amended petition 
dated March 15, 2004, at pages A-8 to A-9 and Exhibit A-18. Petitioners 
made no other adjustments or deductions to EP.

Normal Value

    Petitioners assert that the Department considers China to be a non-
market economy (``NME'') country , and therefore constructed NV based 
on the factors of production (``FOP'') methodology pursuant to section 
773(c) of the Act. In previous cases, the Department has determined 
that China is an NME country. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Folding Gift Boxes from the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 58115 (November 20, 2001), and Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal 
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 20090 
(April 29, 2002). In accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, 
the NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The 
NME status of China has not been revoked by the Department and, 
therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this 
investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product appropriately is 
based on FOP valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, 
all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issues of China's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
    As required by 19 CFR. section 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C), Petitioners 
provided dumping margin calculations for two types of merchandise 
within the proposed scope using the Department's NME methodology 
described in 19 CFR section 351.408. For the NV calculation, 
Petitioners based the quantities of FOP, as defined by section 
773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, labor, energy and packing), for 
Line Pipe from China on usage rates for an Indian producer of subject 
merchandise, Surya Roshni, Ltd. (``Surya Roshni'') and one of the 
petitioning parties, and used publicly available surrogate values from 
India to calculate the respective factor costs. Petitioners assert that 
information regarding the Chinese producers' usage rates is not 
reasonably available, and have therefore assumed, for purposes of the 
Petition, that producers in China use the same inputs in the same 
quantities as Surya Roshni and the petitioning Line Pipe manufacturer. 
However, because Surya Roshni's financial statements did not contain 
sufficient information on the consumption of steel inputs and labor, 
Petitioners used the steel input data from one of the petitioning Line 
Pipe manufacturers in the United States. Likewise, Petitioners used the 
same U.S. manufacturer's labor data for the quantity of labor used in 
producing a ton of finished Line Pipe. See amended petition dated March 
15, 2004, at pages A-9 to A-10. Based on the information provided by 
Petitioners, we believe that Petitioners' FOP methodology represents 
information reasonably available to Petitioners and is appropriate for 
purposes of initiating this investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(c) of the Tariff Act, the Petitioners 
assert that India is the most appropriate surrogate country for China, 
claiming India is: (1) a market economy; (2) a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise; and (3) at a level of economic development 
comparable to China in terms of per capita gross national income (GNI). 
The Department's regulation states it will place primary emphasis on 
per capita GNI in determining whether a given

[[Page 16525]]

market economy is at a level of economic development comparable to the 
NME country (see 19 CFR 351.408(b)). In recent antidumping cases 
involving China, the Department identified a group of countries at a 
level of economic development comparable to China based primarily on 
per capita GNI. This group includes India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Pakistan. Petitioners assert that India is the most 
appropriate surrogate. Based on the information provided by the 
Petitioners, we believe that the Petitioners' use of India as a 
surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this 
investigation.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act, Petitioners 
valued FOP, where possible, on reasonably available, public surrogate 
data from India. Materials were valued based on the financial 
statements of Surya Roshni. See pages II-4 to II-5 and Exhibits II-7 
and II-12 at page 33, and the amended petition dated March 15, 2004, at 
Exhibits A-13 and A-19. With regard to steel inputs, Petitioners used 
the per-metric ton price paid by Surya Roshni for the coil and strip 
used to produce subject merchandise. See amended petition dated March 
15, 2004, at pages A-9 to A-10. Surya Roshni's financial statements 
identified the quantities and prices of electricity, furnace oil, and 
natural gas used in producing the subject merchandise. The updated 
labor rate was taken from the Department's web site. Surrogate values 
were not adjusted for inflation. Depreciation, overhead, SG&A, interest 
expense, packing, and profit ratios all came from Surya Roshni's 
financial statement. See Petition at pages II-4 to II-5 and Exhibits 
II-2, II-9, II-10, and II-12, and amended petition dated March 15, 
2004, at pages A-9 to A-10 and Exhibit A-2.
    The Department accepts Petitioners' calculation of NV based on the 
above arguments, which resulted in an estimated dumping margin of 67.24 
percent for API 5LB, 12'' OD, 0.280 Wall line pipe, and 43.53 percent 
for API 5LB, 4'' OD, 0.280 Wall line pipe.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe imports of Line Pipe from Mexico, Korea and China are being, or 
are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    With respect to Mexico, Korea and China, Petitioners allege that 
the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being 
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at 
less than NV.The Petition contains information on the evolution of the 
volume and prices of the allegedly dumped imports over the period 
beginning with 2001 and ending in 2003. See Petition at page I-16 and 
Exhibits I-12 and I-13. The Petition also contains evidence showing the 
effect of these import volumes and prices on the shipments and 
production of the domestic like product and of the consequent impact on 
the domestic industry. See Petition at pages I-15 to I-19 and Exhibits 
I-9, I-10, I-11, I-17, I-18, I-19, I-20, I-21, and I-23. This evidence 
shows lower AUVs of subject Line Pipe and price suppression of the 
domestic like product, resulting in declining value of sales, declining 
market share and lost sales. For a full discussion of the allegations 
and evidence of material injury, see Initiation Checklist at Attachment 
IV.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based on our examination of the Petition covering Line Pipe, we 
find it meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we 
are initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether 
imports of Line Pipe from Mexico, Korea and China are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless 
this deadline is extended pursuant to section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, 
we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days 
after the date of this initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the Petition has been provided to representatives of 
the governments of Mexico, Korea and China. We will attempt to provide 
a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in 
the Petition, as provided in section 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

International Trade Commission Notification

    The ITC will preliminarily determine no later than April 19, 2004, 
whether there is reasonable indication that imports of Line Pipe from 
Mexico, Korea and China are causing, or threatening, material injury to 
a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination for any country will 
result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that 
country; otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: March 23, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-7093 Filed 3-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S