[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 128 (Thursday, July 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36663-36668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13017]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-910]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded 
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5831 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.

Initiation Of Investigation

The Petition

    On June 7, 2007, the Department of Commerce (Department) received a 
petition on imports of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) filed in proper form by 
Allied Tube & Conduit, Sharon Tube Company, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., 
Western Tube & Conduit Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Wheatland 
Tube Co., i.e., the Ad Hoc Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From China, 
and the United Steelworkers (collectively Petitioners). The period of 
investigation (POI) is October 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), Petitioners alleged that imports of CWP from the PRC 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such 
imports are materially injuring and threaten to injure an industry in 
the United States. The Department issued supplemental questions to 
Petitioners on June 11, 2007, and June 19, 2007, and Petitioners filed 
their responses on June 15, 2007, June 22, 2007, and June 25, 2007, 
respectively. In addition, Petitioners filed an amendment to the 
petition on June 15, 2007.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon 
quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an 
outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 
16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end 
finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded 
and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., ASTM, proprietary, or 
other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may 
also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing).
    Specifically, the term ``carbon quality'' includes products in 
which: (a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other 
contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 
weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, 
by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    All pipe meeting the physical description set forth above that is 
used in, or intended for use in, standard and structural pipe 
applications is covered by the scope of this investigation. Standard 
pipe applications include the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, 
natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating 
systems, air conditioning 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 as an 
intermediate product for protection of electrical wiring, such as 
conduit shells. Structural pipe is used in construction applications.
    Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) specifications, but can be made to other 
specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications 
A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM 
specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and structural pipe may also 
be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry 
specifications. This is often the case, for example, with fence tubing. 
Pipe multiple-stenciled to an ASTM specification and to any other 
specification, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L or 
5L X-42 specifications, is covered by the scope of this investigation 
when used in, or intended for use in, one of the standard applications 
listed above, regardless of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) category under which it is entered. Pipe used for 
the production of scaffolding (but not finished scaffolding) and 
conduit shells (but not finished electrical conduit) are included 
within the scope of this investigation.
    The scope does not include: (a) pipe suitable for use in boilers, 
superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining furnaces and 
feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) mechanical tubing, 
whether or not cold-drawn; (c) finished electrical conduit; (d) tube 
and pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods produced 
to API specifications; and (f) line pipe produced to API specifications 
for oil and gas applications.
    The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are 
currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 
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. However, the product 
description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of 
whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the 
scope of the investigation.

Comments on Scope of Investigation

    During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioners to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. During this review, we noted 
that, while the Department typically prefers to rely upon physical 
characteristics to determine the scope of product coverage, the scope 
description proposed by Petitioners relied upon, in part, end-use 
applications as a method for determining scope coverage. On June 20, 
2007, we met with Petitioners to discuss the scope and its reliance 
upon end-use applications as a method for determining scope coverage. 
See Memorandum to The File, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Office 
Director,

[[Page 36664]]

Office 4, from Maisha Cryor, Import Compliance Specialist, titled 
``Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic 
of China: Scope of the Petition,'' dated June 22, 2007. As discussed in 
the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a 
period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final rule, 62 
FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encourages all 
interested parties to submit such comments, including comments 
regarding the scope's definition of covered merchandise based upon end-
use application, and whether additional HTSUS numbers should be 
included in the scope description, 14 calendar days after publication 
of this initiation notice. Rebuttal comments are due 7 calendar days 
thereafter. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's 
Central Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 - Attention: 
Maisha Cryor, Room 3057. The period of scope consultations is intended 
to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all 
comments and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of 
the preliminary determination.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed by 
an interested party described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), (F) or (G) 
of section 771(9) of the Act, or on behalf of the domestic industry. In 
order to determine whether a petition has been filed by or on behalf of 
the industry, the Department, pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the 
Act, determines whether a minimum percentage of the relevant industry 
supports the petition. A petition meets this requirement if the 
domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) 
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the 
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, 
section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not 
establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more 
than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, 
the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other 
information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, 
as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine industry support 
using a statistically valid sampling method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In 
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of 
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions 
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. 
Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United 
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 
1989), cert. denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition).
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on 
the record, we have determined that CWP constitutes a single domestic 
like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that 
domestic like product. For a discussion of the domestic like product 
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China, (Initiation Checklist) at Attachment I, (Analysis of 
Industry Support), on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of 
the main Department of Commerce building.
    In determining whether Petitioners have standing (i.e., those 
domestic workers and producers supporting the petition account for (1) 
at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like 
product and (2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic 
like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing 
support for, or opposition to, the petition), we considered the 
industry support data contained in the petition with reference to the 
domestic like product as defined in Attachment IV, (Scope of the 
Petition), to the Initiation Checklist. To establish industry support, 
Petitioners provided their shipments for the domestic like product for 
the year 2006, as well as shipments from supporters of the petition, 
and compared them to shipments for the domestic like product for the 
industry. In their second petition supplemental submission, Petitioners 
demonstrated the correlation between shipments and production. See 
``Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic 
of China/ Petitioner's Response To The Department's June 19, 2007 
Request For Clarification Of Certain Items Contained In The Petition,'' 
dated June 22, 2007, (Second Petition Supplemental) at 7. Based on the 
fact that total industry production data for the domestic like product 
for 2006 is not reasonably available, and that Petitioners have 
established that shipments are a reasonable proxy for production data, 
we have relied upon shipment data for purposes of measuring industry 
support. For further discussion see Initiation Checklist at Attachment 
I (Analysis of Industry Support).
    Our review of the data provided in the petition, supplemental 
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department 
indicates that Petitioners have established industry support. First, 
the petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) 
accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling). See Sec. 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act. Second, the domestic 
producers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
732(c)(4)(A)(i) because the domestic producers (or workers) who support 
the petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product. Finally, the domestic producers have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) because 
the domestic producers (or workers) who support the petition account 
for more

[[Page 36665]]

than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced 
by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition 
to, the petition. Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act. See Initiation Checklist at 
Attachment I (Analysis of Industry Support).
    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are an interested party as 
defined in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have 
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
antidumping investigation that they are requesting the Department 
initiate. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment I (Analysis of 
Industry Support).

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate this investigation on imports of CWP from the PRC. The source 
of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price 
as well as normal value (NV) for the PRC are also discussed in the 
Initiation Checklist. Should the need arise to use any of this 
information as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our 
preliminary or final determinations, we will reexamine the information 
and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Export Price

    Petitioners relied on five U.S. prices for CWP manufactured in the 
PRC and offered by U.S. distributors for sale in the United States. The 
prices quoted were for specific grades and quality of CWP falling 
within the scope of this petition, for delivery to the U.S. customer 
within the POI. Petitioners deducted from the prices the costs 
associated with exporting and delivering the product, including ocean 
freight and insurance charges, and foreign brokerage and handling. 
Petitioners did not deduct foreign inland freight charges from the 
export price (EP) because they were unable to establish the distances 
between the Chinese mills and the ports nearest to those mills. See 
Volume I of the petition at 35. Petitioners did deduct an amount for a 
U.S. distributor/importer mark-up. See Volume I of the petition at 34; 
see also Initiation Checklist.

Normal Value

    Petitioners stated that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) and 
no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the Department. 
In previous investigations, the Department has determined that the PRC 
is a NME. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 
(April 19, 2007); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 9037 
(February 24, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005). In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains 
in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME 
status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and remains 
in effect for the purpose of initiating this investigation. 
Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of 
production valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, 
all parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information 
related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of 
separate rates to individual exporters.
    Petitioners selected India as the surrogate country. See Volume I 
of the petition at 28. Petitioners argued that India is an appropriate 
surrogate country because it is a market-economy country that is at a 
comparable level of economic development to the PRC and is a 
significant producer and exporter of CWP. Id. Based on the information 
provided by Petitioners, we believe that its use of India as a 
surrogate country is appropriate for purposes of initiating this 
investigation. After the initiation of the investigation, we will 
solicit comments regarding surrogate country selection. Also, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties will be provided an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors 
of production within 40 calendar days after the date of publication of 
the preliminary determination.
    Petitioners provided dumping margin calculations using the 
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C) 
and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioners calculated NV based on consumption 
rates for inputs used to produce CWP experienced by U.S. producers. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, Petitioners valued 
factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public 
surrogate country data. To value certain factors of production, 
Petitioners used official Indian government import statistics, 
excluding shipments from countries previously determined by the 
Department to be NME countries and excluding shipments into India from 
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand because the Department 
has previously excluded prices from these countries because they 
maintain broadly-available, non-industry specific export subsidies. 
See, e.g., Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final 
Results of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 27287 and Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 23 (May 15, 2007).
    For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the 
POI, Petitioners used information from the wholesale price indices 
(WPI) in India as published in the International Financial Statistics 
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for input prices during the 
period preceding the POI. See Second Petition Supplemental at 1 and 
Exhibit 1. In addition, Petitioners made currency conversions, where 
necessary, based on the POI-average rupee/U.S. dollar exchange rate for 
the POI, as reported on the Department's website. Id.
    The Department calculates and publishes the surrogate values for 
labor to be used in NME cases on its website. Therefore, to value 
labor, Petitioners used a labor rate of $0.83 per hour, published on 
the Department website, in accordance with the Department's 
regulations. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) and Initiation Checklist.
    Petitioners valued electricity in the production of CWP based on 
the Indian electricity rate as reported in the Key World Energy 
Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency for the 
year 2000. See ``Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China/ Petitioner's Response To The Department's 
June 11, 2007 Request For Clarification Of Certain Items Contained In 
The Petition,'' dated June 15, 2007 (Petition Supplemental) at 23 and 
Exhibit M. Petitioners originally inflated electricity to a POI value 
using the WPI published by the Reserve Bank of India. See Volume I of 
the petition at 31. However, Petitioners revised the inflator to the 
WPI published by the IMF at the direction of the Department. See 
Petition Supplemental at 23 and Exhibit

[[Page 36666]]

M; see also Initiation Checklist for further details. Petitioners 
valued natural gas in the production of CWP based on Indian natural gas 
prices charged to industrial users during a period overlapping the POI, 
as reported by CRISIL Research India. See Volume I of the petition at 
32 and Volume II of the petition at Exhibit. However, the Department 
determined that the Gas Authority of India, Ltd. (GAIL) was more 
appropriate as the source for the valuation of natural gas. See 
Initiation Checklist for further details. Therefore, the Department 
requested that Petitioners recalculate the surrogate value for natural 
gas based upon values published by GAIL. See ``Letter to Gilbert 
Kaplan, Counsel for Petitioners, from Mark Manning, Program Manager, 
Office 4, Regarding `Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: 
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China,' '' dated June 19, 2007. As a result, Petitioners valued natural 
gas in the production of CWP based on Indian natural gas rates, 
published by GAIL for February 2005. See Second Petition Supplemental 
at Exhibit 4. Petitioners inflated natural gas to a POI value using the 
WPI published by the IMF. Id.
    For the NV calculations, Petitioners derived the figures for 
factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses, and 
profit from the financial ratios of two Indian producers of CWP: Zenith 
Birla (India) Limited and Surya Roshni Limited.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of CWP from the PRC are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based upon 
comparisons of EP to the NV, calculated in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, the estimated calculated dumping margins for CWP 
from the PRC range from 51.34 percent to 85.55 percent.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than NV. Petitioners contend that the industry's injured 
condition is illustrated by reduced market share, lost sales, reduced 
production, capacity and capacity utilization rate, reduced shipments 
and increased inventories, underselling and price depression or 
suppression, lost revenue, reduced employment, decline in financial 
performance and increase in import penetration. We have assessed the 
allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury and 
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation. See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Injury).

Separate-Rates Application

    The Department modified the process by which exporters and foreign 
producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See 
Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (Separate-Rates and Combination Rates 
Bulletin), available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. The process requires the submission 
of a separate-rate status application. Based on our experience in 
processing the separate-rates applications, we have modified the 
application for this investigation to make it more administrable and 
easier for applicants to complete. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, Indonesia, and 
the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 58374, 58379 (October 6, 2005); 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas 
From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28, 
2005); and Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond 
Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the 
Republic of Korea, 70 FR 35625, 35629 (June 21, 2005). The specific 
requirements for submitting the separate-rates application in this 
investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which 
will be available on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date of publication of this 
initiation notice in the Federal Register. Submission of the separate-
rates application is due no later August 26, 2007.

NME Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value Questionnaire

    For NME investigations, it is the Department's practice to request 
quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in 
the petition. Although many NME exporters respond to the quantity and 
value information request, at times some exporters may not have 
received the quantity and value questionnaire or may not have received 
it in time to respond by the specified deadline. Therefore, the 
Department typically requests the assistance of the NME government in 
transmitting the Department's quantity and value questionnaire to all 
companies who manufacture and export subject merchandise to the United 
States, as well as to manufacturers who produce the subject merchandise 
for companies who were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POI. The quantity and value data received from 
NME exporters is used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents.
    The Department requires that the respondents submit a response to 
both the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rates 
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate-rate status. Appendix I of this notice 
contains the quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by 
all NME exporters no later than July 18, 2007. In addition, the 
Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with 
the filing instructions on the Department's website at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html. The Department will send 
the quantity and value questionnaire to those exporters identified in 
Volume II of the petition at Exhibit 5, and to the NME government.

Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this 
investigation. The Separate-Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states 
the following:
    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now 
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool 
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific

[[Page 36667]]

combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit 
rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both 
exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied 
the exporter during the period of investigation.
See Separate-Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at 6.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigation

    Based upon our examination of the petition on CWP from the PRC, we 
find that the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the 
Act. Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to 
determine whether imports of CWP from the PRC are being, or are likely 
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 
calendar days after the date of publication of this initiation notice.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the government of 
the PRC.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date 
on which it receives notice of this initiation, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of CWP from the PRC are causing 
material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. 
industry. See section 733(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. A negative ITC 
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: June 27, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Where it is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as 
amended) permits us to investigate (1) a sample of exporters, 
producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on 
the information available at the time of selection, or (2) exporters 
and producers accounting for the largest volume and value of the 
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined.
In the chart below, please provide the total quantity and total value 
of all your sales of merchandise covered by the scope of this 
investigation (see scope section of this notice), produced in the PRC, 
and exported/shipped to the United States during the period October 1, 
2006, through March 31, 2007.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Market                           Total Quantity       Terms of Sale        Total Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States.......................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
1. Export Price Sales...............................  ..................  ..................  ..................
2...................................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
 a. Exporter name...................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
 b. Address.........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
 c. Contact.........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
 d. Phone No........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
 e. Fax No..........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
3. Constructed Export Price Sales...................  ..................  ..................  ..................
4. Further Manufactured Sales.......................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Total Sales.........................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Quantity:

     Please report quantity on a metric ton basis. If any 
conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and 
source.

Terms of Sales:

     Please report all sales on the same terms, such as ``free 
on board'' at port of export.

Total Value:

     All sales values should be reported in U.S. dollars. 
Please provide any exchange rates used and their respective dates and 
sources.

Export Price Sales:

     Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price 
sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurs before 
importation into the United States.
     Please include any sales exported by your company directly 
to the United States.
     Please include any sales exported by your company to a 
third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the 
merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
     If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please 
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently 
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
     Please do not include any sales of merchandise 
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.

Constructed Export Price Sales:

     Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed 
export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated customer 
occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the 
unaffiliated customer is made by a person in the United States 
affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies 
even if the sale occurs prior to importation.
     Please include any sales exported by your company directly 
to the United States.
     Please include any sales exported by your company to a 
third-country market economy reseller where you had knowledge that the 
merchandise was destined to be resold to the United States.
     If you are a producer of subject merchandise, please 
include any sales manufactured by your company that were subsequently 
exported by an affiliated exporter to the United States.
     Please do not include any sales of merchandise 
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.

Further Manufactured Sales:

     Further manufacture or assembly (including re-packing) 
sales (``further manufactured sales'') refers to merchandise that

[[Page 36668]]

undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before 
being sold to the first unaffiliated customer.
     Further manufacture or assembly costs include amounts 
incurred for direct materials, labor and overhead, plus amounts for 
general and administrative expense, interest expense, and additional 
packing expense incurred in the country of further manufacture, as well 
as all costs involved in moving the product from the U.S. port of entry 
to the further manufacturer.
[FR Doc. E7-13017 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S