[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5500-5507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1664]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-914]


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWR) from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in 
the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in 
section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 
estimated dumping margins are shown in the ``Preliminary 
Determination'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen or Drew Jackson, 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-
2769 or 482-4406, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 27, 2007, the Department received petitions concerning 
imports of LWR from the PRC, Mexico, Turkey, and the Republic of Korea 
(Korea) filed in proper form by Allied Tube and Conduit, Atlas Tube, 
Bull Moose Tube Company, California Steel and Tube, EXLTUBE, Hannibal 
Industries, Leavitt Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, 
Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded Tube, and Western 
Tube and Conduit (collectively, the petitioners). The Department 
initiated antidumping duty investigations of LWR from the above-
mentioned countries on July 17, 2007. See Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from 
Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 40274 (July 24, 2007) (Initiation Notice). On August 22, 2007, 
the International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that 
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States 
is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports of LWR from the PRC, Mexico, Turkey, and Korea. See Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and 731-TA-1118-1121 (Preliminary), 72 FR 
49310 (August 28, 2007).
    On July 18, 2007, the Department requested quantity and value (Q&V) 
information from the 53 companies that were identified in the petition 
as potential producers or exporters of LWR from the PRC. See Exhibit 
10, Volume I, of the June 27, 2007, Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (the petition). The Department 
received timely responses to its Q&V questionnaire from the following 
10 companies (three of which were identified in the petition): 
Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd. (ZZPC), Suns International 
Trading Limited (Suns), Liaoning Cold Forming Sectional Company Limited 
(Liaoning), Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. (Lets Win), Wuxi 
Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Baishun), Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Walsall), Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co., Ltd. 
(Worldunion), Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Weifang), Jiangyin 
Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. (Jiangyin), and Dalian Brollo Steel 
Tubes Ltd. (Dalian).
    On August 16, 2007, the Department selected ZZPC and Lets Win as 
mandatory respondents. See memorandum regarding ``Selection of 
Respondents in the Antidumping

[[Page 5501]]

Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated August 16, 2007 (Respondent 
Selection Memorandum).
    The Department received separate-rate applications from ZZPC, Lets 
Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, Jiangyin, and Dalian. The 
Department did not receive separate-rate applications from Suns and 
Liaoning.
    On August 17, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to the mandatory respondents. ZZPC and Lets Win submitted 
timely responses to the Department's questionnaire during September and 
October 2007. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to, and 
received responses from, ZZPC and Lets Win in October, November, and 
December 2007 and January 2008. The petitioners submitted comments to 
the Department regarding ZZPC's and Lets Wins' questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses, and the separate rates response 
of Dalian in October and December 2007.
    On September 21, 2007, the Department released to interested 
parties a memorandum which listed potential surrogate countries and 
invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country and factor 
value selection. No party responded to the Department's invitation to 
comment on surrogate country selection. However, in October, November, 
and December 2007 and January 2008, both the petitioners and the 
respondents submitted surrogate values, including surrogate financial 
statements, for use in this investigation. All of the submitted 
surrogate data are from India.
    In August and September 2007, the petitioners and respondents 
submitted comments to the Department regarding the appropriate model 
matching criteria.
    On November 1, 2007, the petitioners alleged targeted dumping by 
ZZPC and Lets Win. On December 10, 2007, the Department sent a letter 
to the petitioners requesting more information regarding both targeted 
dumping allegations. See Letter from Howard Smith, Program Manager, 
Office 4, to Petitioners, concerning, ``Targeted Dumping Allegation,'' 
dated December 10, 2007. On December 17, 2007, the petitioners 
responded to the Department's December 10th request for additional 
information. See the ``Targeted Dumping'' section of this notice for 
additional information regarding these allegations.
    On December 13, 2007, the petitioners requested that the Department 
make a finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to 
imports of LWR from the PRC. The Department issued questionnaires 
regarding critical circumstances to Lets Win and ZZPC on December 18, 
2007. Lets Win and ZZPC submitted their responses to those 
questionnaires on December 28, 2007, and January 2, 2008. See the 
``Critical Circumstances'' section of this notice for additional 
information.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2006, through March 
31, 2007. This period comprises the two most recently completed fiscal 
quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the petition was 
filed (i.e., June 2007). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is 
certain welded carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of 
rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness 
of less than 4 mm.
    The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy 
steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. 
Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none 
of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight 
respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of 
silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 
1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 
lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 
percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent 
vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-
quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the 
scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to 
this investigation is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 
7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the 
investigation is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323, (May 
19, 1997) and Initiation Notice. The Department received no comments 
concerning the scope of the LWR antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations. Accordingly, we have not made changes to the scope of 
this investigation.

Critical Circumstances

    The Department preliminarily finds that there is reason to believe 
or suspect that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject 
merchandise from the PRC-wide entity because, in accordance with 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, importers of LWR produced by the 
PRC-wide entity knew or should have known that the exporter was selling 
the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales. See Memorandum 
from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, ``Preliminary Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part,'' dated concurrently 
with this memorandum. In addition, the Department also preliminarily 
finds that imports from the PRC-wide entity satisfy section 
733(e)(1)(B) of Act because these imports were massive during a 
relatively short period. See id.
    However, with respect to Lets Win, ZZPC, and the separate-rate 
companies, the Department does not preliminarily find that there is 
reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist for 
imports of subject merchandise from these companies because the record 
indicates that imports from these companies were not massive during a 
relatively short period. See section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act; see also 
Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, ``Preliminary 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part,'' dated 
concurrently with this memorandum. Accordingly, for Lets Win, ZZPC, and 
the separate-rate companies, the statutory requirement imposed by 
section 733(e)(1)(B) of Act has not been satisfied and, therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for 
these entities.

Targeted Dumping

    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, in calculating dumping 
margins in investigations the Department normally will compare U.S. 
prices and normal values using a weighted average-to-average or 
transaction-to-transaction comparison methodology. However, section 
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act allows the Department to compare transaction-
specific export or constructed export prices to weighted-average normal

[[Page 5502]]

values if there is a pattern of export or constructed export prices for 
comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers, 
regions, or periods of time and the Department explains why such 
differences cannot be taken into account using the weighted average-to-
average or transaction-to-transaction methods. See sections 
777A(d)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Further, 19 CFR 
351.414(f)(1)(i) requires that a determination of targeted dumping be 
made ``through the use of, among other things, standard and appropriate 
statistical techniques.'' The regulations further elaborate that 
targeted dumping allegations ``must include all supporting factual 
information, and an explanation as to why the average-to-average or 
transaction-to-transaction method could not take into account any 
alleged price differences.'' See 19 CFR 351.414(f)(3).
    On November 1, 2007, the petitioners alleged that Lets Win and ZZPC 
targeted certain sales of LWR for dumping. Specifically, the 
petitioners alleged that targeted dumping occurred where the average 
net price of all of the subject merchandise sold to a particular 
customer, entered into a particular port, or sold during a specific 
month, differed by more than two percent from the overall average net 
price of all of the subject merchandise sold by the respondent during 
the POI. The petitioners believe the two-percent price difference 
supports a finding of targeted dumping because: (1) This approach is 
consistent with the methodology used in the antidumping duty 
investigation of coated free sheet (CFS) paper from the Republic of 
South Korea; and (2) LWR is a commodity product sold in a competitive 
market and, thus, any price difference is critical. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 
from the Republic of Korea, 72 FR 60630 (October 25, 2007) (CFS from 
Korea) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; 
see also Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from China, Korea, 
Mexico, and Turkey, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and 731-TA-1118-1121 
(Preliminary) USITC Pub. 3941 at 10 (August 2007) (noting that the 
parties generally agree that LWR is a commodity-like product). Based on 
the price comparisons described above, the petitioners argue that Lets 
Win engaged in targeted dumping during a certain time period whereas 
ZZPC engaged in targeted dumping with respect to certain customers, 
regions, and time periods.
    After reviewing the petitioners' targeted dumping allegations, the 
Department determined that the allegations lacked basic information and 
support, and informed the petitioners that they failed to: (1) 
Establish that the two-percent price variation is significant for the 
LWR market; (2) establish that the price differences are based on 
purchasers, regions, or time periods rather than other factors (e.g., 
general price fluctuations in the market, product differences, 
differences in channels of distribution or quantities purchased); and 
(3) explain why the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction 
comparison methodology cannot take into account the observed price 
differences. See the Department's December 10, 2007, letter to the 
petitioners.
    In response to the Department's December 10, 2007, letter, the 
petitioners asserted that the ITC has already analyzed the LWR market 
and found the subject merchandise to be a commodity product. See the 
petitioners' December 17, 2007, submission to the Department. The 
petitioners noted that the only stated reason for accepting a two-
percent price variation as evidence of targeted dumping in the CFS 
paper investigation was the ITC's finding that CFS paper is a commodity 
product. According to the petitioners, additional market analysis 
related to targeted dumping (beyond the ITC's finding) was not engaged 
in by the petitioner in CFS paper, nor is such extensive market 
analysis required by the statute. Thus, the petitioners maintained that 
the ITC's findings are more than adequate support for their proposed 
two-percent benchmark. Moreover, the petitioners argued that price 
differences in commodity-like products sold to different purchasers or 
regions or in different time periods can only be captured through an 
average-to-transaction comparison. Specifically, the petitioners stated 
that if the Department were to average prices to targeted and non-
targeted groups the lower prices in the targeted groups would be offset 
by the prices in the non-targeted groups.
    We have determined that in this case using an average-to-
transaction comparison methodology results in the same overall 
antidumping margin for each of the respondents as using an average-to-
average comparison methodology. See memoranda to the File from Jeff 
Pedersen for each respondent regarding ``Dumping Margins Based on an 
Average-to-Transaction Comparison Methodology.'' Thus, the petitioners' 
claim that the observed price differences can only be taken into 
account using an average-to-transaction comparison is not supported by 
the facts in this case. See id. Therefore, the requirement of section 
777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act that the average-to-average or 
transaction-to-transaction methodology cannot account for the price 
differences is not met. See also ``Statement of Administrative 
Action,'' accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, (1994) at 843 (SAA) (``{b{time} efore relying on 
{the average-to-transaction comparison{time}  methodology, however, 
Commerce must establish and provide an explanation why it cannot 
account for such differences through the use of an average-to-average 
or transaction-to-transaction comparison.'').
    Finally, the Department notes that the petitioners failed to 
adequately respond to the Department's concerns regarding their 
targeted dumping allegations. Specifically, the petitioners failed to 
describe how the LWR market functions and did not adequately explain 
why a two-percent price difference should be considered to be 
significant for the ``commodity-like product,'' LWR, given the 
characteristics of the LWR market.\1\ As provided in the SAA ``the 
Administration intends that in determining whether a pattern of 
significant price differences exist, Commerce will proceed on a case-
by-case basis, because small differences may be significant for one 
industry or one type of product, but not for another.'' See SAA at 843. 
Moreover, the petitioners failed to address or take into consideration 
other possible reasons for the observed price differences (e.g., 
general price fluctuations in the market, product differences (the 
petitioners did not compare prices of identical merchandise in their 
analysis), differences in channels of distribution or quantities 
purchased, etc.). Thus, the petitioners did not adequately establish 
price patterns based on purchasers, regions, or periods of time. We 
note that in the CFS paper investigation, a number of these other 
possible reasons for the observed price differences were taken into 
account by comparing prices for identical merchandise sold at the same 
level of trade on a month-to-month basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Additionally, it is important to note that in the 
investigation of CFS paper from the Republic of Korea, rather than 
adopting a two-percent benchmark in analyzing targeted dumping the 
Department specifically noted that it ``has not adopted any specific 
percentages suggested by both parties in their contentions regarding 
the definition of significance.'' See CFS from Korea and 
accompanying ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the foregoing, we find that the petitioners' allegations do 
not contain sufficient information to conduct a targeted dumping 
analysis.

[[Page 5503]]

Non-Market Economy Treatment

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) 
country. In accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any 
determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof (TRBs), Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 
(December 18, 2003). Therefore, in this preliminary determination, we 
have treated the PRC as an NME country and applied our current NME 
methodology.

Selection of a Surrogate Country

    In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, the Department, 
pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, will generally base normal 
value (NV) on the value of the NME producer's factors of production. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of 
production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy 
countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to 
that of the NME country and are significant producers of merchandise 
comparable to the subject merchandise.
    The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Egypt are countries that are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC. See memorandum regarding 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 
Tube (Pipe) from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated August 22, 2007 (Policy 
Memorandum). From among these economically comparable countries, the 
Department has preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country 
for this investigation because it determined that: (1) India is a 
significant producer of merchandise comparable to the subject 
merchandise and (2) reliable Indian data for valuing the factors of 
production are readily available. See memorandum regarding 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 
Tube from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 
Country'' dated November 13, 2007.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation involving an NME 
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. ZZPC, 
Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, Jiangyin, and Dalian 
provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate 
independently of de jure and de facto government control, and therefore 
are entitled to a separate rate. Suns and Liaoning did not submit 
separate-rate applications. Accordingly, Suns and Liaoning have not 
provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate 
independently of de jure and de facto government control.
    The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic 
of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, 
rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-
making process at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 
1997), and TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as 
further developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). In accordance with the 
separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure 
and de facto governmental control over export activities.

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. Information submitted by ZZPC, Lets Win, 
Baishun, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin indicates that there are no 
restrictive stipulations associated with their exporter and/or business 
licenses; and there are legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of the companies. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found a 
de jure absence of government control over these companies' export 
activities.
    Walsall reported that it is wholly foreign-owned by China Pacific 
Limited (CPL), which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. CPL is in 
turn wholly owned by a Hong Kong citizen. Since there is no PRC 
ownership of Walsall, and we have no evidence indicating that this 
company is under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether Walsall is independent from 
government control. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New 
Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001) (finding that 
no separate rates analysis for Hongfa was necessary because the company 
was wholly foreign owned), unchanged in the final determination; see 
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 
(December 20, 1999).
    The Department determined that Dalian did not make a sale to the 
United States during the POI and thus should not be considered for a 
separate rate. See memorandum regarding ``Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes 
Ltd.'s Eligibility for a Separate Rate'' dated concurrently with this 
notice.

[[Page 5504]]

Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or are 
subject to the approval of, a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department considers an analysis of de facto 
control to be critical in determining whether a respondent is, in fact, 
subject to a degree of governmental control that would preclude the 
Department from assigning the respondent a separate rate.
    ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin have 
each provided information indicating that they: (1) Set export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) have the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and 
other agreements; (3) have autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management; and (4) retain proceeds from sales and make 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found a de facto 
absence of government control over these companies' export activities.
    Based on the foregoing, the Department has preliminarily granted 
ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin, 
separate, company-specific dumping margins. The Department calculated 
company-specific dumping margins for ZZPC and Lets Win and assigned 
Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin a dumping margin 
equal to the weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for 
ZZPC and Lets Win. As noted above, Suns and Liaoning did not submit 
separate-rate applications. Accordingly, Suns and Liaoning have not 
provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate 
independently of de jure and de facto government control. Therefore, 
the Department has not preliminarily granted Suns and Liaoning a 
separate rate.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    Although PRC exporters of subject merchandise to the United States 
were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information to the Department, 
not all exporters responded to the Department's request for Q&V 
information.\2\ Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of 
subject merchandise from the PRC, we have concluded that the companies 
that responded to the Q&V questionnaire do not account for all U.S. 
imports of subject merchandise from the PRC made during the POI. We 
have treated the non-responsive PRC producers/exporters as part of the 
PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department received only 10 timely responses to the 
requests for Q&V information that it sent to the 53 potential 
exporters identified in the petition, and there is no indication 
that any of these Q&V questionnaires were rejected or undeliverable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    As noted above, the PRC-wide entity withheld information requested 
by the Department. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide dumping margin on 
facts available. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 
(January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian 
Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see also SAA at 870. 
Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to the Department's request 
for information, the Department has concluded that the PRC-wide entity 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts 
available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as 
adverse facts available (AFA), information derived from the petition, 
the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects one that is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909 (February 23, 
1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of 
the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest 
calculated rate for any respondent in the investigation. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) at the ``Facts Available'' section. 
Here, we assigned the PRC-wide entity the dumping margin calculated for 
ZZPC, which exceeds the highest margin alleged in the petition and is 
the highest rate calculated in this investigation. We do not need to 
corroborate this rate because it is based on information obtained 
during the course of this investigation rather than secondary 
information.\3\ The PRC-wide dumping margin applies to all entries of 
the merchandise under investigation except for entries of subject 
merchandise from ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, 
and Jiangyin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to 
corroborate secondary information which the SAA describes as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See also SAA at 870.

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

[[Page 5505]]

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether ZZPC or Lets Win sold LWR to the United States 
at LTFV, we compared the weighted-average export price (EP) of the LWR 
to the NV of the LWR, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``NV'' 
sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

EP

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price of sales on EP because the first sale to unaffiliated purchasers 
was made prior to importation and the use of constructed export price 
was not otherwise warranted. During the POI, Lets Win made certain 
sales of subject merchandise to the United States through an 
unaffiliated trading company located in the PRC. Lets Win claims that 
it established all of the essential terms of such U.S. sales through 
its negotiations with the first unaffiliated U.S. customers.\4\ Based 
on Lets Win's claims, the Department has determined that Lets Win's 
reportable sales should include the PRC trading company's sales of 
subject merchandise that were arranged and negotiated by Lets Win 
(using the price charged to the U.S. customer as the starting gross 
price for calculating EP). See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) (Diamond Sawblades), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17 (the 
Department concluded that the seller was the party that negotiated and 
executed all of the essential terms of sale). ZZPC reported that it 
made sales of subject merchandise to an unaffiliated PRC trading 
company with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United 
States. However, unlike Lets Win, ZZPC reported that the unaffiliated 
trading company directly and independently negotiated the terms of the 
sales with U.S. customers.\5\ In light of ZZPC's claims, and the fact 
that the Department ignores transactions between companies in an NME 
country, we have not considered these sales through the unaffiliated 
PRC trading company in our analysis because they are not ZZPC's 
reportable sales. This approach is consistent with that taken in the 
investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC. See Diamond Saw 
Blades; see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
34130 (June 18, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2 noting that `` * * * the knowledge test applies only to 
exporters that have dealings with entities outside of the NME country. 
In an NME situation, the Department ignores transactions between 
producers and exporters that are both in-country, since we will not 
base export price on internal transactions between two companies 
located in the NME country'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Lets Win's November 6, 2007, supplemental response at C-
1 through C-8 and SA-8.
    \5\ See ZZPC's December 17, 2007, supplemental response at 5 
through 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by 
deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the starting 
price (gross unit price) charged to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States: foreign movement expenses, marine insurance, 
international freight, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses.
    We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where a PRC 
company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi (RMB). If market 
economy service providers, who were paid in a market economy currency, 
provided movement services for over 33 percent of subject merchandise 
shipments, by volume, we based the movement expenses on the actual 
price charged by the service provider. If market economy service 
providers, who were paid in a market economy currency, provided 
movement services for less than 33 percent of subject merchandise 
shipments, by volume, we calculated the movement expenses by weight-
averaging surrogate values with the actual price charged by the service 
provider. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006). For details regarding our EP 
calculation, see analysis memoranda for ZZPC and Lets Win dated 
concurrently with this notice.

NV

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we constructed NV 
from the factors of production employed by the respondents to 
manufacture subject merchandise during the POI. Specifically, we 
calculated NV by adding together the value of the factors of 
production, general expenses, profit, and packing costs. We valued the 
factors of production using prices and financial statements from the 
surrogate country, India. In selecting surrogate values, we followed, 
to the extent practicable, the Department's practice of choosing values 
which are non-export average values, contemporaneous with, or closest 
in time to, the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 
42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We 
also considered the quality of the source of surrogate information in 
selecting surrogate values.
    We valued material inputs and packing by multiplying the amount of 
the factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average 
unit value of the factor. We derived the average unit value of the 
factor from Indian import statistics. In addition, we added freight 
costs to the surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We 
calculated freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory that produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the 
nearest seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, 
as appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we could only 
obtain surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POI, we 
inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale 
Price Index (WPI) as published in the International Financial 
Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    Further, in calculating surrogate values from Indian imports, we 
disregarded imports from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because 
in other proceedings the Department found that these countries maintain 
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Therefore, 
it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these 
countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Amended Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 
2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and

[[Page 5506]]

Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 
(April 16, 2004).\6\ Thus, we have not used prices from these countries 
in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition, we note that legislative history explains that 
the Department is not required to conduct a formal investigation to 
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 
590 (1988). As such, it is the Department's practice to base its 
decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes 
its determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued raw materials and packing materials using Indian import 
statistics, except as noted below.
    We valued electricity using rates from Key World Energy Statistics 
2003, published by the International Energy Agency. Because these data 
were not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the values using the 
WPI. See the memoranda regarding ``Investigation of Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Values Selected'' for ZZPC and Lets Win dated concurrently 
with this notice (Factor Value Memoranda).
    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect, 
and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based 
wage rate, which relies on 2004 data. This wage rate can currently be 
found on the Department's Web site on Import Administration's home 
page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised 
in January 2007, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of 
these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the 
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: 
Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does 
not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of 
labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types 
of labor reported by ZZPC and Lets Win. See Factor Value Memoranda.
    We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation (http://www.midcindia.org) because it includes 
a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 
industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 
193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 for the 
``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because the value was not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using the WPI. See 
Factor Value Memoranda.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate from 
data obtained from the Web site of an Indian transportation company, 
InFreight Technologies India Limited. See http://www.infreight.com/. 
This average rate was used by the Department in the antidumping duty 
administrative review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 25247 (May 4, 2007). Because this value is not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using the WPI. See 
Factor Value Memoranda.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the 
brokerage and handling costs that were reported in public submissions 
that were filed in two antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we 
averaged the public brokerage and handling expenses reported by Agro 
Dutch Industries Ltd. in the antidumping duty administrative review of 
certain preserved mushrooms from India and those reported by Kejirwal 
Paper Ltd. in the LTFV investigation of certain lined paper products 
from India. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); 
see also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products 
from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006).
    Because the resulting value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we 
inflated the rate using the WPI. See Factor Value Memoranda.
    ZZPC reported that all of its U.S. sales had international freight 
arranged by an NME freight forwarder. We valued international freight 
expenses using U.S. dollar freight quotes that the Department obtained 
from Maersk Sealand (Maersk), a market-economy shipper. We obtained 
quotes from Maersk for shipments from the PRC port of export and the 
U.S. port of import reported by ZZPC for its U.S. sales. Because these 
data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted them for 
inflation using the U.S. WPI. See Factor Value Memoranda.
    We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, and profit, using the 2006-2007 audited financial 
statements of Zenith Birla (India) Limited and Bihar Tubes Limited. 
Record evidence indicates that these are Indian companies that produce 
subject merchandise. We did not rely upon a third company's financial 
statement that was placed on the record, namely the financial statement 
of Bhawani Industries Limited (Bhawani), because Bhawani's financial 
statement lists a ``DEPB Premium'' in ``Other Income.'' India's DEPB 
Scheme has been found by the Department to provide a countervailable 
subsidy. See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Recision of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 61592 (November 12, 1999) (unchanged in final results); 
see also http://ia.ita.doc.gov/esel/eselframes.html. In Crawfish from 
the PRC, the Department noted that where it has reason to believe or 
suspect that a company may have received subsidies, financial ratios 
derived from that company's financial statements do not constitute the 
best available information with which to value financial ratios. See 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results And Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 
Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 19174 
(April 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. Given the record information regarding Bhawani's use of the 
DEPB program, and the fact that we have other acceptable financial 
statements to use as surrogates, consistent with the Department's 
decision in Crawfish from the PRC, we have not used Bhawani's financial 
data in our surrogate ratio calculations. See Factor Value Memoranda.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information with which to value factors of 
production in the final determination within 40 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.

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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would

[[Page 5507]]

calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice. This 
change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Policy Bulletin 05.1, states:
{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 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 Policy Bulletin 05.1, ``Separate Rates Practice and Application 
of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries.''

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Exporter & producer          Weighted- average  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-   264.64
 Making Co., Ltd..
Kunshan Lets Win Steel         223.52
 Machinery Co., Ltd..
Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co.,   247.75
 Ltd..
Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe   247.75
 Industrial Co., Ltd..
Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co.,   247.75
 Ltd..
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co.,   247.75
 Ltd..
Jiangyin Jianye Metal          247.75
 Products Co., Ltd..
PRC-Wide Rate................  264.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    As noted above, the Department has found that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from 
the PRC-Wide entity. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of 
the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
suspend liquidation of all entries of LWR from the PRC-Wide entity as 
described in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section of this notice, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 
days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. For the mandatory respondents, Lets Win and ZZPC, and the 
separate rate applicants, Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Guangdong 
Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd., Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co., 
Ltd., Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products 
Co., Ltd., we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries 
of LWR from these companies as described in the ``Scope of the 
Investigation'' section of this notice, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption upon the date of publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 
or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which 
the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. 
Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final 
determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States 
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports of LWR, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, 
of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of 
authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on November 27, 2007, and 
December 10, 2007, Lets Win and ZZPC, respectively, requested that in 
the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 
days. At the same time, Lets Win and ZZPC requested that the Department 
extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 
CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4-month period to a 6-month period. In 
accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), 
because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the 
requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of 
the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial 
exist, we are granting the request and are postponing the final 
determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be 
extended accordingly.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 23, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-1664 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P