[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1509-1511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-103]


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

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 2006.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by Duferco Steel Inc. (Duferco), an 
importer 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, 2004, through July 31, 2005.
    The respondent, S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub), informed the 
Department that it would not be participating in the review. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the application of adverse 
facts available is warranted with respect to Silcotub.

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) (Amended 
Final).
    On August 1, 2005, 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, 70 FR 44085. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(3), on August 30, 2005, Duferco 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
Silcotub. On August 31, 2005, the petitioner requested a review of 
Silcotub. On September 28, 2005, 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, 2004, through 
July 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631.
    On September 26, 2005, the Department issued its questionnaire\1\ 
to Silcotub. Because we had reason to believe or suspect that Silcotub 
made sales at prices below the cost of production during the review, we 
initiated a sales-below-cost inquiry in order to determine whether 
Silcotub made sales during the POR at below-cost prices.\2\ See, e.g., 
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order 
in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy, 66 FR 34414, 34415 (June 28, 2001). 
Silcotub did not respond by the deadline of November 2, 2005. In a 
November 28, 2005, letter, Silcotub informed the Department that it was 
declining to participate in the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \2\ In the 2002-03 administrative review, the Department 
disregarded Silcotub's home-market sales that failed the cost test. 
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) (2002-03 
Final Results). Accordingly, the Department initiated a sales-below-
cost inquiry in the 2003-04 administrative review. Silcotub withdrew 
its participation from that review without responding to the 
Department's cost-of-production questionnaire. See Certain Small 
Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe 
from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Final Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 70 FR 
41206 (July 18, 2005) (2003-04 Final Results). As a result, the 
Department used adverse facts available in determining the margin 
for Silcotub in that review. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1510]]

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).
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to 
the scope of this order is dispositive. For further information on 
merchandise subject to this order, see 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, 70 FR 24520 (May 10, 
2005).

Use of Facts Available

    In accordance with section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we preliminarily determine that the use of facts 
available as the basis for the weighted-average dumping margin is 
appropriate for Silcotub. Silcotub did not submit a response to our 
antidumping duty questionnaire. Consequently, we find that it has 
withheld ``information that has been requested by the administering 
authority'' under section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act and we must use facts 
otherwise available to assign a margin to Silcotub.
    In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are making an 
adverse inference in our application of the facts available. This is 
appropriate because Silcotub did not provide responses to our 
questionnaire, which are necessary for us to complete our margin 
calculations. Therefore, we find that Silcotub has not acted to the 
best of its ability in providing us with relevant information which is 
under its control.
    In selecting an adverse facts available rate, the Department's 
practice has been to assign respondents that 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 of 
the proceeding. See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,1411 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, we have preliminarily assigned Silcotub an 
adverse facts available rate of 15.15 percent, which is the LTFV 
weighted-average margin we calculated for Silcotub during the original 
investigation. See Amended Final.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, to the extent practicable, 
the Department shall corroborate secondary information from independent 
sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-
316, at 870 (1994) (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.
    As explained 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), in order 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, with respect to an administrative review, if the Department 
chooses as facts available 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 and used in the 
prior administrative review,\3\ is relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ After withdrawing its participation from the 2003-04 
administrative review, Silcotub was assigned, as adverse facts 
available, the LTFV weighted-average rate of 15.15 percent. See 
2003-04 Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
dumping margin for S.C. Silcotub S.A. for the period August 1, 2004, 
through July 31, 2005, is 15.15 percent.
    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 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are 
applying adverse facts available 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 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

[[Page 1511]]

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 2002-03 administrative review. See 
2002-03 Final Results, 70 FR at 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.
    This administrative review and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 4, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-103 Filed 1-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S