[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33084-33088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2887]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-489-501)


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by domestic interested parties, 
Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation (``Allied Tube'') and Wheatland 
Tube Company (``Wheatland''), the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube (``welded pipe 
and tube'') from Turkey. This review covers the following two 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise: (1) the Y[uuml]cel 
Group (``Y[uuml]cel''), which includes [Ccedil]ayirova Boru Sanayi ve 
Ticaret A.S. (``[Ccedil]ayirova'') and its affiliate, Y[uuml]cel Boru 
Ithalat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S. and (2) the Borusan Group 
(``Borusan''). We preliminarily determine that both Y[uuml]cel and 
Borusan made sales below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties based on 
the difference between the export price (``EP'') and the NV.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, George McMahon, 
or Martin Claessens, at (202) 482-4161, (202) 482-1167, or (202) 482-
5451, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 15, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on welded pipe and tube from Turkey. See 51 
FR 17784 (May 15, 1986). On May 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 24117 (May 3, 2004). On May 28, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b), domestic interested parties Allied Tube and Wheatland 
requested a review of Y[uuml]cel and Borusan.
    On June 30, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded pipe 
and tube from Turkey, covering the period May 1, 2003, through April 
30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 39409 
(June 30, 2004). On November 1, 2004, the Department extended the 
deadline for the preliminary results until no later than May 31, 2005. 
See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 63366 (November 1, 2004).
    On August 4, 2004, the Department sent an antidumping duty 
administrative review questionnaire to Y[uuml]cel.\1\ In the cover 
letter, the Department erred in asking Y[uuml]cel to respond to section 
D of the questionnaire. In its questionnaire response, Y[uuml]cel 
reported section D data. Subsequently, on January 6, 2005, a Department 
official spoke with counsel for Y[uuml]cel about the error, and counsel 
for Y[uuml]cel decided to leave the section D information on the 
record. Counsel for Y[uuml]cel stated that he was amenable to leaving 
the cost data on the record without prejudice to Y[uuml]cel's rights 
vis-[agrave]-vis the requirement of a cost allegation. See Memorandum 
to The File dated January 6, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The questionnaire consists of sections A (general 
information), B (sales in the home market or to third countries), C 
(sales to the United States), D (cost of production/constructed 
value), and E (cost of further manufacturing or assembly performed 
in the United States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conducted a sales verification of Y[uuml]cel's questionnaire 
responses from April 4 through April 8, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 
406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (black, or galvanized, painted), or end 
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and 
tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be 
called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. 
Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance 
of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in 
plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic 
sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be 
used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for 
fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit 
shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or 
those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard 
pipe applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outlined above are included in the scope of this order, 
except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), we verified the information provided by 
Y[uuml]cel. We used standard verification procedures, including an 
examination of the relevant sales and financial records. Our 
verification results are detailed in the company-specific verification 
report placed in the case file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), 
room B-099 of the main Department building. We made minor revisions to 
certain sales and cost data based on verification findings with the

[[Page 33085]]

exception of warranties, discussed below. See the Y[uuml]cel 
Verification Report, May 25, 2005, and Calculation Memorandum, May 31, 
2005, in the CRU.

Product Comparisons

    We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales 
of products sold in the United States and comparison market that were 
identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) grade; (2) 
nominal pipe size; (3) wall thickness; (4) surface finish; (5) end 
finish. When there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most 
similar merchandise based on the characteristics listed above in order 
of priority listed.

Export Price

    Because both Y[uuml]cel and Borusan sold subject merchandise 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation, and constructed export price methodology was not 
otherwise warranted based on the record facts of this review, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP as the basis for 
all of Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's sales.
    We calculated EP using, as starting price, the packed, delivered 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made the following deductions 
from the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate: foreign 
inland freight from the mill to warehouse to port, foreign brokerage 
and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and other 
related charges. In addition, we added duty drawback to the starting 
price, having found preliminarily that such an adjustment was warranted 
under the standard two-prong test. See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. 
United States, Slip Op. 05-56 (May 12, 2005).

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared both Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's volume of home-market sales 
of the foreign like product to their respective volume of U.S. sales of 
the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act. Because both Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's aggregate volume of home-
market sales of the foreign like product were greater than five percent 
of their respective company's aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, we determined that each home market was viable. We 
calculated NV as noted in the ``Calculation of NV Based on Comparison 
Market Prices'' and ``Calculation of NV Based on Constructed Value'' 
sections of this notice.

B. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

    Because the Department disregarded sales below the COP in the last 
completed review of Borusan, we have reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for 
the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices 
below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP 
investigation of sales by Borusan in the home market. See Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 65 FR 48843 (August 11, 2004) 
(``Final Results, Turkey'').
1. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of Borusan's costs of materials and fabrication 
employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, 
and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and the cost of all expenses 
incidental to packing and preparing the foreign like product for 
shipment.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales 
of the foreign like product as required by 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 the home-
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, 
discounts, packing, and direct selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 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 do not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' We found that, for certain products, more 
than 20 percent of Borusan's home-market sales were sold at prices 
below the COP. Further, we found that the prices for these sales did 
not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis and used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

C. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices

    For Borusan, for those comparison products for which there were 
sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on home-market prices. No 
allegation was submitted that Y[uuml]cel made sales below the COP; and 
therefore, we did not conduct a sales-below-cost test on Y[uuml]cel's 
sales. In these preliminary results, for Borusan, we were able to match 
all U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales, made in the ordinary course of 
trade, of either an identical or a similar foreign like product, based 
on matching characteristics. For Y[uuml]cel, we based NV on home-market 
prices. For U.S. sales that we could not appropriately match to 
contemporaneous home-market sales, we used constructed value. For both 
Borusan and Y[uuml]cel, we calculated NV based on free on board 
(``FOB'') mill/warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers, 
or prices to affiliated customers which were determined to be at arm's 
length (see discussion below regarding these sales). We made 
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for discounts, 
rebates, inland freight, and pre-sale warehouse expense. Additionally, 
we added billing adjustments and interest revenue. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we 
adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale (``COS''). These 
circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses and other 
direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in the level of trade 
(see discussion below regarding level of trade). Calculation of NV 
Based on Constructed Value (``CV'')
    For Y[uuml]cel, when we could not determine the NV based on 
comparison market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of 
a comparable product, we compared the EP to CV. In accordance with 
section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum

[[Page 33086]]

of the cost of manufacturing (``COM'') of the product sold in the 
United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 
SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred by Y[uuml]cel in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the comparison market.
    For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS 
differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses 
incurred on comparison market sales and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses.

Adverse Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department has 
determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for the 
treatment of warranty expenses for purposes of determining the 
preliminary results for the subject merchandise sold by Y[uuml]cel. 
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides: If an interested party (A) 
withholds information that has been requested by the administrating 
authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for 
the submission of the information or in the form and the manner 
requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 
section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title. Moreover, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that: If the administering authority finds that an interested 
party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information from the administering 
authority, the administering authority, in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to 
the interests of the party in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available.
    Y[uuml]cel failed to report warranty expenses properly in the home 
market and did not provide such information by the deadlines for the 
submission of the information or in the form and the manner requested. 
The Department gave Y[uuml]cel several opportunities to report warranty 
expenses properly in the WARRH data field. Specifically, the Department 
issued Y[uuml]cel two supplemental questionnaires in addition to the 
initial sections A-C of the questionnaire. Despite these opportunities, 
the Department discovered at verification that Y[uuml]cel failed to 
report warranties to certain customers in its original submissions. In 
addition, the Department found that the original data reported by 
Y[uuml]cel included warranties for customers that were not identified 
in the database (i.e., customers to whom Y[uuml]cel did not sell 
subject merchandise in the home market during the POR). Y[uuml]cel had 
the opportunity and ability to report warranty expenses properly; 
however, it failed to do so in the initial questionnaire response and 
subsequent supplemental questionnaire responses.
    Although Y[uuml]cel presented the correction to home-market 
warranty expenses at the onset of verification, the Department did not 
verify this information. In accordance with Department practice, 
Y[uuml]cel's verification outline clearly states the following: 
``{p{time} lease note that verification is not intended to be an 
opportunity for submitting new factual information. New information 
will be accepted at verification only when (1) the need for that 
information was not evident previously, (2) the information makes minor 
corrections to information already on the record, or (3) the 
information corroborates, supports, or clarifies information already on 
the record.'' See Y[uuml]cel's Verification Outline, dated March 25, 
2005, at page 2.
    Based on the fact that Y[uuml]cel repeatedly reported incorrectly 
its warranty expense data until the beginning of verification, the 
Department is rejecting Y[uuml]cel's belated correct reporting of 
warranty expenses. See Y[uuml]cel's Verification Report, dated May 31, 
2005, in the CRU.
    As stated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC''), ``if a respondent 'fails to provide {requested{time}  
information by the deadlines for submission,' Commerce shall fill in 
the gaps with 'facts otherwise available.' The focus of subsection (a) 
is respondent's failure to provide information. The reason for the 
failure is of no moment. As a separate matter, subsection (b) permits 
Commerce to 'use an inference that is adverse to the interests of {a 
respondent{time}  in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available,' only if Commerce makes the separate determination that the 
respondent 'has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply.' The focus of subsection (b) is respondent's failure 
to cooperate to the best of its ability, not its failure to provide 
requested information.'' See Nippon Steel Corporation vs. United 
States, 37 F. 3d 1373 (August 8, 2003) (``Nippon Steel'').
    In Nippon Steel, the CAFC held that ``the statutory mandate that a 
respondent act to the 'best of its ability' requires the respondent to 
do the maximum it is able to do.'' See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382.
    Y[uuml]cel's actions fell well below the standard of doing the 
maximum it was able to do. It failed to properly evaluate and submit 
the requested information in its initial questionnaire response, and 
failed twice more despite specific follow-up questioning by the 
Department. Indeed, Y[uuml]cel's untimely presentation of requested 
information regarding warranties at the beginning of verification 
demonstrated that it would have been able to provide the Department 
with the information requested, if it had exercised the requisite 
effort. However, Y[uuml]cel's failure to do so by the deadlines for 
submission demonstrates it did not act to the best of its ability.
    Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department 
has determined that the use of facts available is appropriate with 
respect to Y[uuml]cel's warranty expenses in the home market. Pursuant 
to section 776(b)(3) of the Act, we have used an adverse inference by 
not accepting Y[uuml]cel's warranty expenses in the home market.

Arm's-Length Sales

    We included in our analysis Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's home-market 
sales to affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales 
were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to prices 
at which Y[uuml]cel and Borusan, respectively, sold identical 
merchandise to their unaffiliated customers. Each respondent's sales to 
affiliates constituted less than five percent of overall home-market 
sales. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-
length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated 
party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price 
of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties, 
we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's 
length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the 
Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002).

[[Page 33087]]

Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act, at 829-831 (see H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d 
Sess. 829-831 (1994)), to the extent practicable, the Department 
calculates NV based on sales at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as 
U.S. sales, either EP or CEP. When the Department is unable to find 
sale(s) in the comparison market at the same LOT as the U.S. sale(s), 
the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at 
different LOTs. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the 
home market. To determine whether home-market sales are at a different 
LOT than U.S. sales, 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 differences affect 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.
    In implementing these principles, we examined information from each 
respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in the reported 
home-market and EP sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by each for each channel of distribution. We 
determined that with respect to Y[uuml]cel's sales, there was one home 
market LOT and one U.S. LOT, and with respect to Borusan's sales, there 
were two home-market LOTs and one U.S. LOT.
    For home-market sales, we found that Y[uuml]cel sold mill-direct, 
FOB, without the use of a selling agent. In some cases, Y[uuml]cel 
arranged for freight; however, the purchaser took possession of the 
merchandise upon loading in all cases. No additional services were 
undertaken by Y[uuml]cel.
    Y[uuml]cel's U.S. sales were made at only one LOT. Selling 
functions were limited to maintaining stock until full container loads 
were produced, and arranging for shipment of the merchandise to the 
United States. Y[uuml]cel's U.S. sales were made-to-order, with title 
passing to the purchaser when the goods passed the ship's rail. No 
other sales activities were undertaken by Y[uuml]cel.
    Because Y[uuml]cel's sales functions in each market were nearly 
identical, we have determined that the LOT in each market is the same 
and therefore have made no LOT adjustments in comparing its U.S. and 
home-market sales.
    With regard to Borusan, we examined information from the respondent 
on the marketing stages involved in the reported home-market and EP 
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by 
Borusan for each channel of distribution. Consistent with the prior 
reviews of this respondent, we determined that with respect to 
Borusan's sales, there were two home-market LOTs and one U.S. LOT 
(i.e., the EP LOT). See Final Results, Turkey, 65 FR 48843. For home-
market sales, we found that Borusan's back-to-back sales by affiliated 
resellers and mill-direct sales comprised one LOT. We found that 
Borusan's inventory sales by affiliated resellers warranted a separate 
LOT. Back-to-back sales by affiliated resellers are sales by Borusan 
through an affiliated selling agent. Such sales are very similar to 
mill-direct sales; however, the affiliated agent arranges for freight. 
The affiliated agent does not take possession of the merchandise; it is 
transferred directly from the mill to the final customer. For mill-
direct sales, Borusan provided customer advice, product information and 
technical services, warranty services, and advertising. For back-to-
back sales by affiliated resellers, the resellers engage in marketing 
activities and make freight arrangements, and warranty services are 
provided by the mill. For inventory sales by affiliated resellers, the 
resellers have a sales staff that sells Borusan products out of the 
reseller's warehouse. Those resellers maintain such warehouses, provide 
product information, and customer advice. Warranty services for these 
sales were provided by the mill.
    The first main difference between Borusan's inventory sales by 
affiliated resellers and Borusan's mill-direct and back-to-back sales 
is off-site warehouse maintenance and operation. Borusan's affiliated 
resellers that sell from inventory operate their own warehouses. 
Second, for its back-to-back and mill-direct sales, Borusan transfers 
the title of the merchandise directly and immediately to the first 
unaffiliated customer, but Borusan cannot perform such a transfer of 
title in its sales out-of-inventory by affiliated resellers. Last, 
Borusan provides discounts for both mill-direct and back-to-back sales, 
but provides only very limited discounts for inventory sales.
    Borusan's U.S. sales were made at only one LOT. The selling 
functions for U.S. sales included customer advice and product 
information, warranty services, and freight and delivery arrangements. 
Borusan's sales to the United States were not made out of warehouses. 
This LOT is most similar to the first LOT in the home market (mill-
direct and back-to-back sales).
    Where possible, we compared U.S. sales to sales at the identical 
home-market LOT mill-direct sales and back-to-back affiliated reseller 
sales. If no match was available at the same LOT, we compared sales at 
the U.S. LOT to sales at the second home-market LOT.
    To determine whether an LOT adjustment was warranted, we examined 
the prices of comparable product categories, net of all adjustments, 
between sales at the two home-market LOTs we had designated. We found a 
pattern of consistent price differences between sales at these LOTs.
    In making the LOT adjustment, we calculated the difference in 
prices between the two home-market LOTs. Where U.S. sales were compared 
to home-market sales at a different LOT, we adjusted the home-market 
price by the amount of this calculated difference.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made 
currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow 
Jones Business Information Services.
    Section 773A(a) 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 a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as 
the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determine that a fluctuation existed, we generally utilize the 
benchmark rate instead of the daily rate, in accordance with 
established practice.

Date of Sale

    In the home market, Y[uuml]cel reported its date of sale based on 
the invoice date. However, for sales to the United States, Y[uuml]cel 
reported its date of sale based on the ``order confirmation date,'' 
which Y[uuml]cel refers to as its ``contract date.'' Y[uuml]cel 
indicated that its ``order confirmation'' constitutes the acceptance of 
an offer made by its U.S. customers which was made in the form of a 
purchase order. See Y[uuml]cel's supplemental questionnaire response 
dated February 24, 2005, at pages 24-25. During verification, 
Y[uuml]cel reported that it confirms orders via e-mail and that

[[Page 33088]]

Y[uuml]cel maintains a file that documents the order confirmations for 
each of its sales to the United States. At verification, the Department 
attempted to corroborate this claim by verifying a sample of the order 
confirmations, which would enable a comparison to the reported shipment 
sale dates. However, Y[uuml]cel was unable to produce all the e-mail 
confirmations requested by the Department and Y[uuml]cel was unable to 
substantiate its claim that order confirmation date (``contract date'') 
was representative of the date on which the material terms of sale were 
finalized. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results, we have 
used the invoice date reported by Y[uuml]cel as the basis for 
Y[uuml]cel's U.S. date of sale.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period May 1, 2003, through April 30, 
2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y[uuml]cel..........................................               12.11
Borusan.............................................                0.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date 
of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments 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. 
Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication of this notice. See section 351.310(c) of 
the Department's regulations. If requested, a hearing will be held 44 
days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. 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 written comments or hearing, within 
120 days from publication of this notice.

Assessment

    Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the 
Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject 
merchandise. Upon completion of this review, the Department will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all entries of subject 
merchandise by those importers. We have calculated each importer's duty 
assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total calculated 
entered value of examined sales. Where the assessment rate is above de 
minimis, the importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all 
entries made during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
welded pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the 
companies listed above will be the rates established in the final 
results of this review, except if the rates are less than 0.5 percent 
and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (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, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 
(``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; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or 
the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash deposit 
rate will be 14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's 
regulations 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 27, 2005.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2887 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S