[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30379-30383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-826]


Certain Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 
Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from V & M do Brasil, S.A. (VMB), the 
respondent, and United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel), the 
petitioner, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small 
diameter seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line and pressure 
pipe (seamless pipe) from Brazil (A-351-826). This administrative 
review covers imports of seamless pipe from VMB. The period of review 
(POR) is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of seamless pipe by VMB have 
not been made at less than normal value (NV). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate 
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties 
who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit: (1) A 
statement of the issues, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a 
table of authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 26, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or David Kurt Kraus, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0405 or (202) 482-7871, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 3, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on seamless pipe from Brazil. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 
Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 
FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). On August 1, 2005, the Department published 
the opportunity to request administrative review of, inter alia, 
seamless pipe from Brazil for the period August 1, 2004, through July 
31, 2005. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on August 31, 2005, the 
respondent VMB and the petitioner U.S. Steel, requested that we conduct 
an administrative review of VMB's sales of seamless pipe. On September 
28, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review 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 (September 28, 2005).
    On October 7, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to VMB. VMB submitted its response to section A of the 
questionnaire on November 10, 2005, the responses to sections B and C 
on November 30, 2005, and the response to section D on December 16, 
2005. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for sections 
A, B, and C on December 20, 2005, and a supplemental questionnaire for 
section D on January 20, 2006. The Department received the supplemental 
questionnaire response for sections A, B, and C on January 30, 2006, 
and the supplemental questionnaire response for section D on February 
17, 2006.

Period of Review

    The period of review is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are seamless pipes produced to 
the ASTM

[[Page 30380]]

A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the 
physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The 
scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, 
or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters 
below, regardless of specification.
    For purposes of this order, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and 
alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, 
not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) 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. These pipes are commonly known as standard 
pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They 
may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-
standard wall thickness are commonly referred to as tubes.
    The seamless pipes subject to this antidumping duty order are 
currently classifiable under subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 
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). The following information further defines the scope of this 
order, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described 
above:
    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 gasses 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 
standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees 
Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be 
used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 
and the ASME codes. 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.
    Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and 
natural gas or other fluids in pipelines. Seamless line pipes are 
produced to the API 5L specification.
    Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-
106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of 
pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent ASTM A-106 
specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. 
Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 
specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications 
do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining 
separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers 
triple-certify the pipes. 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-
certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, 
petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in 
power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in 
some oil field uses (on shore and offshore), 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, A-106 pipes may be used in 
some boiler applications.
    The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the 
physical parameters described above and produced to one of the 
specifications listed above, regardless of application, 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 this order. Therefore, seamless pipes 
meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-
335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, or API 5L standards shall be covered if 
used in a standard, line or pressure application.
    For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe 
that, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used 
in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A-162, A-
192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, 
line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the 
scope of this order. Specifically excluded from this order are boiler 
tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM 
A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used 
in standard, line or pressure applications. In addition, finished and 
unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are excluded from the scope 
of this 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. Finally, also excluded from 
this order are redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the 
production of cold-drawn pipe or tube.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether VMB made sales of seamless pipe to the United 
States at less than fair value, we compared the constructed export 
price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described below. Specifically, 
in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEP 
of individual U.S. transactions to monthly weighted-average NV.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), we considered all products produced by VMB covered 
by the descriptions in the Scope of the Order section of this notice to 
be foreign like products for the purpose of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to VMB's U.S. sales of seamless pipe.
    We have relied on the following six criteria to match U.S. sales of 
seamless pipe to sales in Brazil of the foreign like product: product 
specification, manufacturing process (cold-finished or hot-rolled), 
outside diameter, wall thickness, surface finish, and end finish. All 
U.S. sales were matched to sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market.

[[Page 30381]]

Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 
States before or after the date of importation by, or for the account 
of, the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and 
(d).
    In the instant review, VMB sold seamless pipe through an affiliated 
company, Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes Corporation (VM Corp.) of 
Houston, Texas. VMB reported all of its U.S. sales of seamless pipe as 
CEP transactions. After reviewing the evidence on the record of this 
review, we have preliminarily determined that VMB's transactions are 
classified properly as CEP sales because these sales occurred in the 
United States and were made through its U.S. affiliate to an 
unaffiliated buyer. Such a determination is consistent with section 
772(b) of the Act and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's decision in AK Steel Corp. et al. v. United States, 226 F.3d 
1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (AK Steel). In AK Steel, the Court of 
Appeals examined the definitions of export price (EP) and CEP, noting 
that ``the plain meaning of the language enacted by Congress in 1994, 
focuses on where the sale takes place and whether the foreign producer 
or exporter and the U.S. importer are affiliated, making these two 
factors dispositive of the choice between the two classifications.'' 
Id. at 1369. The court stated, ``the critical differences between EP 
and CEP sales are whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or 
outside the United States and whether it is made by an affiliate,'' and 
noted that the phrase ``outside the United States'' had been added to 
the 1994 statutory definition of EP. Id. at 1368-70. Thus, the 
classification of a sale as either EP or CEP depends upon where the 
contract for sale was concluded (i.e., inside or outside the United 
States) and whether the foreign producer or exporter is affiliated with 
the U.S. importer. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that 
VMB's transactions are classified properly as CEP sales.
    For these CEP sales transactions, we calculated price in conformity 
with section 772(b) of the Act. We based CEP on the packed, delivered 
duty-paid prices to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We 
also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement expenses included foreign 
inland freight, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and 
handling and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we deducted selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, which also included imputed 
credit expenses and indirect selling expenses. We also made an 
adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability
    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
VMB's volume of home market sales of seamless pipe to the volume of 
U.S. sales of seamless pipe, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act. Because VMB's aggregate volume of home market sales of 
seamless pipe was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales of seamless pipe, we determined that the home market was 
viable. See Section A Response, at Exhibit 1.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
    In the most recently completed segment, the Department determined 
that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below its cost of 
production (COP) and therefore excluded such sales from its calculation 
of NV. See Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 
Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 24524 (May 10, 2005). The 
Department's affirmative findings of sales-below-cost in the 
preliminary results of the prior period review did not change in the 
final results. Therefore, the Department has reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 
that VMB made sales in the home market at prices below the COP for this 
POR. As a result, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
examined whether VMB's sales in the home market were made at prices 
below the COP.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of VMB's material 
and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for 
selling expenses, general and administrative expenses, interest 
expenses and packing costs. We relied on the COP data reported by VMB, 
except that we revised VMB's reported total cost of manufacturing by 
recalculating the correction factor (i.e., INDCOR) by allocating 
certain costs related only to seamless pipe over the reported cost of 
manufacture of seamless pipe, and allocating costs related to both 
subject and non-subject merchandise over the cost of goods sold of all 
products. For further details regarding this adjustment, see the 
Department's Cost of Production Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results V & M do Brasil, S.A. (COP Memorandum), dated June 
2, 2006.
    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to the home market 
sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to 
home market prices net of any applicable billing adjustments, indirect 
taxes (ICMS, IPI, COFINS and PIS), and any applicable movement charges.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and whether 
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent 
of VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices below the 
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of 
VMB's home market sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, 
we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within 
an extended period of time in substantial quantities, in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    Our cost test for VMB revealed that for home market sales of 
certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of those models were 
at prices below the COP. We therefore retained all such sales in our 
analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test 
also

[[Page 30382]]

indicated that for certain models, more than 20 percent of the home 
market sales of those models were sold at prices below COP within an 
extended period of time and were at prices which would not permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Thus, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we excluded these below-
cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as 
the basis for determining NV.
C. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    We matched all U.S. sales to NV. We calculated NV based on prices 
to unaffiliated customers. We adjusted gross unit price for billing 
adjustments, interest revenue, indirect taxes, and the per-unit value 
of any post-transaction complementary invoices (or credit notes) that 
were issued to adjust for any errors in the originating invoice. We 
made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 
insurance and warehousing, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. 
In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411, as well as 
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS 
adjustments for imputed credit expenses, warranty expenses, and 
commissions. Finally, we deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT is that 
of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. We 
consider only the selling activities reflected in the U.S. price after 
the deduction of expenses incurred in the United States and CEP profit 
under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. We analyze whether different selling activities 
are performed, and whether any price differences (other than those for 
which other allowances are made under the Act) are shown to be wholly 
or partly due to a difference in LOT between the CEP and NV. Under 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we make an upward or downward 
adjustment to NV for LOT if the difference in LOT involves the 
performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to 
affect price comparability, based on a pattern of consistent price 
differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in which NV 
is determined. Finally, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not 
provide an appropriate basis to determine a LOT adjustment, we reduce 
NV by the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the foreign 
comparison market on sales of the foreign like product, but by no more 
than the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred for CEP 
sales. See section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    In analyzing differences in selling functions, we determine whether 
the LOTs identified by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 
1997). If the claimed LOTs are the same, we expect that the functions 
and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
claims that LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the 
functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. In the present review, VMB 
claimed that there was no LOT in the home market comparable to the LOT 
of the CEP sales, and requested a CEP offset. See Section A Response at 
A-29.
    VMB claimed two LOTs in the home market based on distinct channels 
of distribution to two categories of customers: distributors and end-
users. We examined the reported selling functions and found that VMB's 
home market selling functions for all customers include sales 
forecasting, planning, order processing, general selling functions 
performed by VMB sales personnel, technical assistance, and provisions 
for warranties, guarantees, and freight/delivery. VMB also claimed 
packing as a selling function performed for all customers. See Section 
A Response at Exh. 12. However, packing is an activity related to 
preparing the finished merchandise for shipment to the customer, and as 
such, does not constitute a selling activity that is relevant to a LOT 
analysis.
    In addition, VMB reported several selling functions unique to each 
channel of distribution. Personnel training, sales promotion, 
distributor/dealer training, sales/marketing support, market research, 
and a provision for cash discounts are selling functions performed only 
in sales to distributors. While many sales to distributors go through 
unaffiliated warehouses, VMB does not incur inventory carrying costs 
for these sales. In contrast, engineering services, advertising, 
procurement/sourcing services, and after-sales services are provided 
solely to end-users. VMB also paid commissions on sales to some end-
users. In addition, VMB reported the selling function of inventory 
maintenance with regard to sales to one end-user customer, for which a 
small percentage of VMB's sales are transferred to unaffiliated 
warehouses from which this customer regularly extracts merchandise on a 
just-in-time basis. See Section A Response at A-23; see also Section B 
Response at B-59. Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily 
conclude that the selling functions for the reported home market 
channels of distribution are sufficiently different to consider them as 
two distinct LOTs.
    Because VMB reported that all of its U.S. sales are CEP sales made 
through one channel of distribution to its U.S. affiliate, we 
preliminarily agree with VMB's claim that there is only one LOT in the 
U.S. market. We examined the claimed selling functions for VMB's CEP 
sales, i.e., the selling functions performed for sales to VM Corp., 
which include sales forecasting, order processing, technical 
assistance, delivery of the merchandise, and warranties. See Section A 
Response at Exh.12; see also VMB's Supplemental A-C Questionnaire 
Response dated January 30, 2006, at 12. VM Corp. handles the remaining 
selling functions of strategic planning, sales negotiations and 
promotion, sales support, and customer service involved in the CEP 
sales to the unaffiliated customer in the United States, which are not 
considered in our LOT analysis.
    Based upon the above analysis, we preliminarily determine that 
there is no LOT in the home market comparable to the CEP LOT, and it is 
therefore not possible to determine whether the difference in LOT 
affects price comparability. Consequently, we examined whether a CEP 
offset may be appropriate pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(f) of the 
Department's regulations. We find that the selling functions VMB 
performs for sales to its

[[Page 30383]]

U.S. affiliate are fewer and less complex than the selling functions 
VMB performs for either LOT in the home market. Compared to U.S. sales, 
the chain of distribution in the home market is at a level much more 
advanced. For example, many sales to distributors go through 
unaffiliated warehouses and VMB provides after-sales services to end-
users. In contrast, VMB's selling functions for U.S. sales end with 
delivery at the port of entry.
    Accordingly, because the data available do not provide an 
appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment, but the LOT in the home 
market is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the 
CEP transactions, we preliminarily determine that a CEP offset 
adjustment is appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2004, through July 31, 
2005, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer / Exporter                 Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V & M do Brasil, S.A..................................              0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed 
no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to 
submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief 
summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. An interested 
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See section 
351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date. The 
Department will issue the final results of these preliminary results, 
including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such 
written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific ad valorem 
rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of 
publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct CBP 
to liquidate entries subject to this review without regard to 
antidumping duties.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the company included in these preliminary results for 
which the reviewed company did not know their merchandise was destined 
for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate 
for the intermediate company involved in the transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate will be the rate 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will be the company-specific rate established 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 subject merchandise; 
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the 
cash deposit rate will be 124.94 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 
Order and Amended Final Determination: Certain Small Diameter Seamless 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Brazil, 60 
FR 39707 (August 3, 1995). These deposit rates, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 19, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-8178 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S