[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24520-24524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-485-805]


Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, 
and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination Not to Revoke in 
Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub), a 
producer/exporter of subject merchandise and United States Steel 
Corporation (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless 
standard, line, and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania. The 
period of review (POR) is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004.
    Silcotub informed the Department that it would not be participating 
in the review. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the 
application of adverse facts available (AFA) is warranted with respect 
to Silcotub. In addition, because Silcotub did not satisfy the 
requirement of selling subject merchandise at not less than normal 
value for a period of three consecutive years, we also preliminarily 
determine not to revoke the order in part.

[[Page 24521]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins at (202) 482-1392 or 
John Holman at (202) 482-3683, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty 
order on seamless pipe from Romania. See Notice of Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, 
and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000). On 
August 3, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 46496. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on August 31, 2004, Silcotub 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review. In 
addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), Silcotub requested that 
the Department revoke the order with regard to Silcotub, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.222(b)(2). Silcotub subsequently withdrew its request for 
review on December 20, 2004. On August 31, 2004, the petitioner 
requested a review of Silcotub. On September 22, 2004, the Department 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Romania, covering the 
period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 56745.
    On October 19, 2004, the Department issued its questionnaire to 
Silcotub\1\. Responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire 
were received in December 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which 
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests 
a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market 
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market 
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy 
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section 
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like 
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 11, 2005, we published the final results in the most 
recently completed review, in which we disregarded below-cost sales by 
Silcotub. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in 
Part: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, 
and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 70 FR 7237 (February 11, 2005) (Final 
Results) and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 70 FR 14648 (March 23, 
2005) (Amended Final). Therefore, on February 14, 2005, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), we requested that Silcotub complete section D of our October 
19, 2004, questionnaire. On March 4, 2005, Silcotub informed the 
Department that it was withdrawing its participation in the 
administrative review and it withdrew its business-proprietary 
information from the record of the review.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are seamless carbon and alloy 
(other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and 
redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, 
ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 
5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, 
regardless of application. The scope of the order also includes all 
products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and 
meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of 
specification. Specifically included within the scope of the order are 
seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches 
(114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, 
manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain 
end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 
surface finish.
    The seamless pipes subject to the order are currently classifiable 
under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 
7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 
7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 
7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS).
    Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes 
are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, 
chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gases in 
industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated 
pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of 
external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-
106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees 
Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to 
ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels 
exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in 
the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
    Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 
specification and generally are not intended for high temperature 
service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure 
conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and 
gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, 
automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes 
(depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures 
but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally 
low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may 
be manufactured to ASTM
    A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.
    Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and 
natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are 
produced to the API 5L specification.
    Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe 
for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of 
water.
    Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-
106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid 
maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, 
manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by 
meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required 
tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors 
sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a 
single inventory to service all customers.
    The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or 
quadruple certified pipes is use in pressure piping systems by 
refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical

[[Page 24522]]

plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-
fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off 
shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. 
A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas 
distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications 
constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. 
However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
    Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or ``hollow profiles'' of 
carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/
hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold 
under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM
    A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.
    The scope of the order includes all seamless pipe meeting the 
physical parameters described above and produced to one of the 
specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the 
exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or 
not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and 
pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining 
characteristics of the scope of the order. Therefore, seamless pipes 
meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-
53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-
795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, 
line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific 
exclusions discussed below.
    For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe 
which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be 
used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include 
ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, 
ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, 
line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific 
exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of 
the order.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of the order is boiler tubing 
and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, 
ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, 
and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or 
pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG 
are excluded from the scope of the order, if covered by the scope of 
another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by 
such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this 
scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.
    With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department 
will not instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to require end-
use certification until such time as the petitioner or other interested 
parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that the products are being used in a covered application. If 
such information is provided, we will require end-use certification 
only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is 
provided that such products are being used in covered applications as 
described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by 
petitioner, we find a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
seamless pipe produced to the A-161 specification is being used in a 
standard, line or pressure application, we will require end-use 
certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we will 
require only the importer of record to certify to the end use of the 
imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate 
implementation, we may also require producers who export such products 
to the United States to provide such certification on invoices 
accompanying shipments to the United States.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and CBP 
purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to the 
scope of this order is dispositive.

Use of Facts Available

    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, if necessary 
information is not available on the record or if an interested party or 
any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by 
the administering authority, (B) fails to provide such information by 
the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute, or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the 
Act, the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) 
of the Act, the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. In this case, Silcotub's decision not to participate in 
the review constitutes a withholding of information requested by the 
Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act (i.e., its 
business-proprietary sales and cost-of-production information), 
necessary for the Department to conduct an accurate antidumping 
analysis. Without Silcotub's business-proprietary sale-specific 
information and, in a review such as this where the Department has 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like 
product were made at prices at less than the cost of production (see 
Final Results), the Department is unable to determine the reliability 
of sales prices in the home market and whether they form an appropriate 
basis for determining normal value. As a result of Silcotub's March 4, 
2005, withdrawal of its business-proprietary sales information and its 
failure to report its actual cost of production for the foreign like 
product and the constructed-value information for subject merchandise, 
the Department is unable to calculate an accurate dumping margin.
    By withdrawing from the review and failing to provide the 
information requested, Silcotub has also impeded the review process 
because the Department has insufficient information upon which it can 
conduct its review. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Therefore, the 
Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination. Absent a sufficient response on the record 
from the respondent, sections 782(d) and (e) do not apply.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may use an inference 
adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information (see also the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Doc. No. 103-
316 at 870). By refusing to provide its cost-of-production information 
and withdrawing its business-proprietary sales information, Silcotub 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined that an 
adverse inference is warranted with respect to Silcotub.
    In selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to 
assign respondents which fail to cooperate with the Department the 
highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review. See Sigma Corp. 
v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, we have 
preliminarily assigned Silcotub an AFA rate of 15.15 percent which is 
the

[[Page 24523]]

LTFV weighted-average margin calculated for Silcotub during the 
original investigation. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Small 
Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 
from Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the 
Department's disposal. The SAA clarifies that the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise is ``secondary information'' and 
states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary 
information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, 
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used.
    As discussed in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), to corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and 
relevance of the information used. Unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping 
margins; the only source for margins is administrative determinations. 
Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a 
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is 
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. We also find that this rate, calculated from a prior segment of 
the proceeding, is relevant. The data upon which the Department relied 
in calculating the 15.15 rate in the LTFV investigation was that of 
Silcotub and Sota Communication Company. During the period of 
investigation, Silcotub produced the product which Sota Communication 
Company sold to the United States. Therefore, we examined for the LTFV 
investigation Silcotub's factor-of-production information in our 
calculation of the 15.15 percent rate. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless 
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania, 65 FR 5594 (February 4, 
2000).
    Furthermore, there is no information on the record that calls into 
question the validity of this rate. Therefore, we find that this rate 
is corroborated to the extent practicable. Also, we find that this rate 
is sufficiently high as to reasonably ensure that Silcotub does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate. Accordingly, we 
determine that the rate of 15.15 percent, the highest weighted-average 
margin determined for any firm during any segment of this proceeding, 
is in accordance with the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act.

No Revocation in Part

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), on August 31, 2004, 
Silcotub submitted a request that the Department revoke the order in 
part on seamless pipe from Romania with respect to its sales. We 
preliminarily determine that the request from Silcotub does not meet 
all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). In the immediately 
preceding review, Silcotub did not receive a zero or de minimis margin. 
See Amended Final. Therefore, Silcotub did not meet the requirement of 
selling the subject merchandise at not less than normal value for a 
period of three consecutive years. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(1)(i)(A). 
Thus, Silcotub is not eligible for consideration for revocation, and we 
preliminarily determine not to revoke the order with respect to 
Silcotub's sales of seamless pipe to the United States.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, covering the period August 1, 2003, 
through July 31, 2004, we preliminarily determine the dumping margin 
for Silcotub to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.C. Silcotub S.A...................................               15.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held approximately 37 days after the publication of this notice. Issues 
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the case and 
rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which 
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, 
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. 
Parties are also requested to submit such arguments, and public 
versions thereof, with an electronic version on a diskette.
    Upon publication of the final results of this review, the 
Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Because we are applying AFA to all exports of 
subject merchandise produced or exported by Silcotub, we will instruct 
CBP to assess the final percentage margin against the entered customs 
values on all applicable entries during the period of review.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of seamless pipe from Romania entered, or withdrawn, from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 
The cash-deposit rate for Silcotub will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not covered by this review, 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 by this 
review, a prior 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) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash-deposit 
rate will be 13.06 percent, the all-others rate established in the 
prior administrative review. See Final Results at 70 FR 7239. These 
cash-deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility 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.

[[Page 24524]]

    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 3, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2242 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S