[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5508-5514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1665]



[[Page 5508]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-815]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey is 
being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Tariff Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not 
later than 75 days after the signature date of the preliminary 
determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Tyler Weinhold, or Robert 
James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0408, (202) 482-1121, or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 24, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. 
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). The petitioners in this investigation are 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.
    The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit 
comments. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR 40274, (July 24, 2007). No party 
submitted comments on the scope.
    On August 28, 2007, the United States International Trade 
Commission (the Commission) preliminarily determined there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and 
tube from the People's Republic of China, Korea, Mexico and Turkey are 
materially injuring the U.S. industry and notified the Department of 
its findings. See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, 
Korea, Mexico, and Turkey Case Numbers. 701-TA-449 (Preliminary) and 
731-TA-1118-1121 (Preliminary), 72 FR 49310, (August 28, 2007).
    On October 19, 2007, the petitioners requested the Department 
postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days. The Department 
published an extension notice on November 14, 2007, which set the new 
deadline for the preliminary determination at January 23, 2008. See 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, Turkey, and the 
Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 72 FR 64044, (November 14, 2007).
    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act directs the Department to 
calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and 
producer of the subject merchandise. The Department identified a large 
number of producers and exporters of light-walled rectangular pipe and 
tube from Turkey and determined it was not practicable to examine each 
known producer or exporter of the subject merchandise, as provided in 
section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act. On July 31, 2007, we sent 
quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to the following seventeen 
companies identified in the petition or through our own research: 
Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Borusan Mannesmann Boru, Erbosan 
Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Goktas Tube, Guven Boru Profil 
Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret 
A.S., Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret, Noksel Steel Pipe Co., 
MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San. ve Tic. A.S., Ozborsan Boru San. ve 
Tic. A.S., Ozgur Boru, Ozdemir Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti., 
Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Toscelik Profil ve Sac End. 
A.S, Umran Steel Pipe Inc., Yusan Industries, Ltd., and Yucel Boru ve 
Profil Endustrisi A.S.
    The Department did not receive a response to the Q&V questionnaire 
from the following six companies: Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, 
Goktas Tube, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel 
Pipe Inc., and Yusan Industries, Ltd. Furthermore, Kalibre Boru Sanayi 
ve Ticaret A.S., Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret and Ozgur Boru 
\1\ submitted untimely, improperly filed, or incomplete responses. 
These nine companies that failed to respond, or provided an improperly 
filed and/or incomplete response, were given a second opportunity to 
file, but none of them did so in a timely manner.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ozmak Makina ve Elektrik Sanayi, which has been identified 
as another name for Ozgur Boru (see Memorandum to the File, 
``Communication from Ozgur Boru,'' dated August 22, 2007), submitted 
a response on behalf of Ozgur Boru. However, it was not filed 
properly, and has not been made part of the record.
    \2\ Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret submitted an 
untimely second response on September 17, 2007, which was not made 
part of the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nine other exporters/producers submitted proper responses to the 
Department's Q&V questionnaire: Borusan Mannesmann Boru, Erbosan 
Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Guven Boru Profil Sanayii ve 
Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Noksel Steel Pipe Co., MMZ Onur Boru Profil 
Uretim San. Ve Tic. A.S, Ozborsan Boru San. Ve Tic. A.S., Ozdemir Boru 
Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti., Toscelik Profil Ve Sac End. A.S, and Yucel 
Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. Two respondents--Guven Boru Profil 
Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi (Guven Boru) and MMZ Onur Boru 
Profil Uretim San. Ve Tic. A.S (MMZ)--accounted for the majority by 
volume of exports of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the period of investigation (POI) among those companies that responded 
to our quantity and value questionnaire. These two respondents 
accounted for 54 percent of the total exports reported by the 
responding companies. Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(1)(B) of the 
Tariff Act, we selected these two firms as mandatory respondents. See 
the September 7, 2007, Memorandum to Deputy Assistant Secretary Stephen 
J. Claeys, entitled ``Antidumping Duty Investigation on Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey(A-489-815), Respondent 
Selection'' (Respondent Selection Memorandum).
    We issued the antidumping questionnaires to Guven Boru and MMZ on 
September 7, 2007. The Department received a section A response from 
MMZ on October 4, 2007. The Department received a section A response 
from Guven Boru on October 5, 2007. However, the public versions of the 
Guven Boru response were not properly filed or served upon parties and 
the business proprietary version was not served to parties in a timely

[[Page 5509]]

manner. Furthermore, the sales data Guven Boru submitted with its 
November 7, 2007, sections B and C responses were not in a useable 
format. For a complete discussion of these and other deficiencies in 
Guven Boru's submissions, see ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available,'' 
infra.
    Petitioners provided comments on MMZ's section A response on 
October 16, 2007. On October 23, 2007, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to MMZ regarding its section A response. On 
October 25, 2007, MMZ informed the Department that it was no longer 
participating in the antidumping proceeding.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007.

Scope of 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 of 
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 this 
investigation is dispositive.

Model Match

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, all products 
produced by the respondents covered by the description in the Scope of 
Investigation section, above, and sold in Turkey during the POI are 
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
    On August 16, 2007, the Department asked all parties in this 
investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of 
light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico, and the 
People's Republic of China, for comments on the appropriate product 
characteristics for defining individual products. Parties in this 
investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of 
light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea and Mexico were also 
invited to comment on the appropriate model matching methodology. See 
Letter from Richard Weible, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement 7, 
dated August 16, 2007. The Department received comments from the 
Mexican company Perfiles y Herrajes LM on August 23, 2007; from the 
Mexican companies Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. and 
Prolamsa USA, Inc. on August 24, 2007, August 27, 2007, and September 
4, 2007; from the Turkish company Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. on 
August 24, 2007; from the Chinese producer/exporter Zhangjiagang 
Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd.; and from the petitioners on August 24, 
2007. The Department has not made any changes to its proposed 
characteristics and model matching methodology as a result of the 
comments submitted by parties.
    We would have relied on six criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: 
steel input type, whether metallic coated or not, whether painted or 
not, perimeter, wall thickness and shape. However, because we are 
basing the margins for the mandatory respondents upon adverse facts 
available, there was no need to match sales of respondents.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine the use of adverse 
facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary determination 
with respect to all companies that failed to respond (or to respond 
adequately) to the Q&V Questionnaire, and for both mandatory 
respondents (MMZ and Guven Boru). As noted in the Supplementary 
Information section above, the former failed to provide adequate 
responses to the Department's Q&V questionnaire and to the Department's 
follow-up letter of August 16, 2007, while the mandatory respondents 
failed to cooperate in this investigation.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that if an interested 
party withholds information requested by the administering authority, 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of 
the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in 782(i), the administering 
authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 
782(d) of the Tariff Act provides that if the administering authority 
determines a response to a request for information does not comply with 
the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the 
responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient 
submission. Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states further the 
Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all 
of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted 
by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) 
the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    In this case, the nine non-responding or improperly responding 
companies all failed to provide such information by the deadlines for 
submission of the information and/or in the form or manner requested. 
Thus, for these companies in reaching our preliminary determination, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff Act, we 
have based the dumping margin on facts otherwise available.

MMZ

    MMZ, one of the mandatory respondents, did not provide the 
information we requested necessary to calculate an antidumping margin 
for the preliminary determination. Specifically, MMZ failed to provide 
a complete response to our questionnaire, thereby withholding, among 
other things, home-market and U.S. sales information that is necessary 
for reaching the applicable determination, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. On October 25, 2007, MMZ informed the 
Department that it was no longer participating in the antidumping 
proceeding. See Letter from MMZ, ``Request for Withdrawl of MMZ Onur 
Boru Profil Uretim San. Tic. A.S. (``MMZ'') in the Anti-Dumping 
Investigation of Light Walled Rectangular Pipes from Turkey,'' dated

[[Page 5510]]

October 25, 2007. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff Act, we 
have based the dumping margin for MMZ on facts otherwise available.

Guven Boru

    Guven Boru, the other mandatory respondent, failed to provide 
complete, timely, and properly filed responses to several of the 
Department's questionnaires. The Department received the initial 
section A response from Guven Boru on October 5, 2007. However, the 
public versions of the Guven Boru response were not properly filed or 
served upon parties and the business proprietary version was not served 
to parties in a timely manner. The public version submitted was not 
labeled ``public version,'' as required by 19 CFR 351.303. Also, Guven 
Boru served on the petitioners a public version which differed from the 
public version submitted to the Department, where the bracketed 
proprietary information was not redacted on the Department's versions. 
Further, petitioners indicated, and Guven Boru later confirmed, that 
the company did not serve a copy of the business proprietary version of 
this response to the petitioners under administrative protective order 
(APO), as required. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes 
from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Mike Brown,'' dated 
December 27, 2007. See also Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes 
from Turkey, Telephone conversation and E-mail Correspondence with 
Kemal Tureyen of Guven Boru,'' dated October 23, 2007, at Exhibit 1, 
page 3. Finally, Guven Boru filed a certificate of service with its 
business proprietary submissions which was inaccurate, because it 
indicated that copies of the business proprietary version of the 
response were served on the parties on the public service list. Because 
of improper labeling of proprietary information, the Department had 
petitioners return the October 5, 2007, submission on October, 15, 
2007.
    On October 15, 2007, the Department contacted Mr. Kemal Tureyen of 
Guven Boru by electronic mail asking that Guven Boru re-submit the 
public version of its response and serve the business proprietary and 
public versions of the response on the petitioners and pointing out 
Guven Boru's filing and service obligations, specifically Guven Boru's 
obligation to serve business proprietary versions of documents to those 
parties who have access to such information under APO, including 
counsel for petitioners. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the 
File, ``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and 
Tubes from Turkey, Telephone conversation and E-mail Correspondence 
with Kemal Tureyen of Guven Boru,'' dated October 23, 2007, at Exhibit 
1, page 2. On October 18, 2007, the Department received Guven Boru's 
corrected public version of its section A response. In its response, 
Guven Boru reported it had no sales of the foreign like product in the 
home market, and would be reporting sales to its three largest third-
country export markets instead.
    On October 19, 2007, Mr. Tureyen sent an e-mail to the case analyst 
claiming Guven Boru had sent both a business proprietary and public 
version of its section A response to the petitioners. Id. at page 4. In 
an October 23, 2007, e-mail, Mr. Tureyen explained the company had sent 
both a public and proprietary version of its section A response ``by 
post'' on October 16, 2007, or eleven days after the initial filing 
with the Department. Id. at page 5. However, because petitioners 
indicated they still had not received the response (see Memorandum from 
Tyler Weinhold to the File, ``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with 
Mr. Michael Brown,'' dated December 27, 2007), on October 23, 2007, the 
case analyst sent an e-mail to Mr. Tureyen suggesting Guven Boru re-
send the business proprietary and public versions of its section A 
response to petitioners as quickly as possible. See Memorandum from 
Tyler Weinhold to the File, ``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone conversation and E-
mail Correspondence with Kemal Tureyen of Guven Boru,'' dated October 
23, 2007, at page 5. On October 26, 2007, counsel for the petitioners 
indicated he had received the corrected public version of Guven Boru's 
section A response, but had not received the business proprietary 
version. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, ``Antidumping 
Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, 
Telephone Conversations with Mr. Michael Brown,'' dated December 27, 
2007. On October 30, 2007, counsel for petitioners informed the case 
analyst by telephone that petitioners had received the business 
proprietary version of Guven Boru's section A response, which was 
originally due to the Department October 5, 2007. Id.
    We received sections B and C responses from Guven Boru on November 
7, 2007. However, Guven Boru's sales databases were not submitted in a 
useable format. On November 9, 2007, the case analyst sent Mr. Tureyen 
an e-mail asking him to confirm what versions of Guven Boru's section B 
and C questionnaire response had been served on the petitioners. See 
Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, dated November 9, 2007, at 
Exhibit 1, page 6. On November 12, 2007, in response to an e-mail from 
the case analyst, Guven Boru explained that it had sent a public 
version of the sections B and C response to petitioners.
    On November 13, 2007, the Department issued its first supplemental 
questionnaire regarding Guven Boru's section A response and its section 
B and C sales database. On November 19, 2007, in response to our first 
sections A, B, and C supplemental questionnaire, we received revised 
sections B and C databases from Guven Boru. On November 19, 2007, 
petitioners informed the Department by telephone that they had received 
a public version of Guven Boru's section B and C response, but no 
business proprietary version. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the 
File, ``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and 
Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Mike Brown,'' dated 
December 27, 2007.
    On November 26, 2007, petitioners again informed the Department by 
telephone that they had received one public version of Guven Boru's 
November 8, 2007 section B and C response, no business proprietary 
version, and no public or proprietary copies of the corrected section B 
and C databases submitted November 19, 2007. See Memorandum from Tyler 
Weinhold to the File, ``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with 
Mr. Mike Brown,'' dated December 27, 2007. On November 26, 2007, we set 
a letter to Guven Boru reminding the company of its obligation to 
comply with the Department's filing and service regulations. On 
November 27, 2007, Mr. Tureyen sent an e-mail to the case analyst 
explaining that Guven Boru had not sent business proprietary versions 
of the company's section B and C responses to the petitioners, and 
stated it was unable to serve the petitioners the original section B 
and C sales databases because company officials had deleted

[[Page 5511]]

them. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the file, dated December 
19, 2007, at exhibit 1, page 1. In doing so, Guven Boru had denied 
petitioners the opportunity to comment on the data contained in its 
original sales database. On November 28, 2007, we issued our second 
supplemental questionnaire to Guven Boru, which included questions 
regarding certain possible affiliations (our second section A 
supplemental questionnaire).
    On November 29, 2007, we set a letter to Guven Boru giving the 
company a deadline by which to bring itself into compliance with the 
Department's filing and service regulations and warning it that further 
untimely or improperly filed submissions would not be accepted. On 
December 3, 2007, we issued our third supplemental questionnaire to 
Guven Boru (our second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire). 
Also, on December 3, 2007, Guven Boru failed to respond in a timely 
fashion to the our first section A supplemental questionnaire. Guven 
Boru's response was received the next day, on December 4, 2007.
    In a telephone conversation on December 6, 2007, counsel for 
petitioners explained that petitioners had received a copy of the 
narrative portion of Guven Boru's business proprietary section B and C 
response and a copy of the November 19, 2007, section B and C sales 
database submission. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes 
From Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Mike Brown,'' dated 
December 27, 2007. Therefore, Guven Boru had denied petitioners the 
opportunity to comment on the proprietary version of its section B and 
C response until nearly one month after those documents were due to the 
Department. On December 12, 2007, we issued our fourth supplemental 
questionnaire to Guven Boru, regarding certain possible sales in the 
home market (our third section A supplemental questionnaire). Guven 
Boru failed to provide a timely response to our second section A 
supplemental questionnaire, which was due December 13, 2007. On 
December 13, 2007, Guven Boru also submitted a request for an extension 
for its response to our second section B and C supplemental 
questionnaire, which was due December 13, 2007. We denied this request 
for additional time. See letter to Guven Boru, dated December 21, 2007.
    On December 17, 2007, the petitioners submitted a sales-below cost 
allegation for Guven Boru. See Letter from Schagrin Associates, dated 
December 17, 2007. Also, on December 17, 2007, Guven Boru attempted to 
submit an untimely-filed response to our second section A supplemental 
questionnaire, which was due December 13, 2007. In addition, Guven Boru 
failed to file its response to the our second sections B and C 
supplemental questionnaire, which was due on December 17, 2007. On 
December 19, 2007, we received an untimely request for an extension for 
our second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire. Finally, on 
December 20, 2007, Guven Boru failed to respond to the December 12, 
2007 section A supplemental questionnaire.
    On December 21, 2007, we sent a letter to Guven Boru, rejecting its 
response to the second section A supplemental questionnaire, which was 
due December 13, 2007, and its request for an extension for the our 
second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire because these 
documents were untimely filed. In that letter, we also informed Guven 
Boru that we would not accept any further submissions and would use 
facts otherwise available in making our preliminary determination.
    Guven Boru failed to respond in a timely manner to the our November 
13, 2007, section A supplemental questionnaire and our second section A 
supplemental questionnaire and failed to respond entirely to the our 
December 3, 2007, sections B and C supplemental questionnaire and our 
December 12, 2007, section A supplemental questionnaire. Further, Guven 
Boru's untimely filings represented a continuance of a pattern of 
untimely and improperly filed submissions. Moreover, Guven Boru's 
failure on two occasions to timely serve petitioners with proprietary 
versions of its responses until weeks after those responses were due 
prevented the petitioners from meaningfully participating in this 
proceeding. Also, by its own admission, it destroyed its original sales 
databases prior to serving them on petitioners. Finally, Guven Boru's 
untimely responses prevented us from conducting a proper analysis 
within the statutorily imposed time limits of this investigation. For 
these reasons, in reaching our preliminary determination we have based 
the dumping margin for Guven Boru on facts otherwise available pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff Act.

Non-Responding Companies

    As explained above, the Department did not receive a response to 
the Q&V questionnaire from Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Goktas 
Tube, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel Pipe Inc., 
or Yusan Industries, Ltd., and Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and 
Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret and Ozgur Boru submitted 
untimely, improperly-filed, or incomplete responses. Although the 
Department provided all respondents, including those that did not 
respond (or did not respond adequately) to the Q&V questionnaire, with 
notice informing them of the consequences of their failure to respond 
adequately to the Q&V questionnaire in this case, pursuant to section 
782(d) of the Tariff Act, these companies did not respond as requested. 
Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff Act, we have based the dumping 
margin for Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Goktas Tube, Seamless 
Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel Pipe Inc., or Yusan 
Industries, Ltd., and Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Kerim 
Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret and Ozgur Boru on facts otherwise 
available.

Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    According to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, if the Department 
finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the 
Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of 
that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 
2005); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 
2002). It is the Department's practice to apply adverse inferences to 
ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. See, e.g., 
Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of the 2005-
2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663, December 10, 
2007. Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). See 
also, Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of

[[Page 5512]]

the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663 
(December 10, 2007).
    Although the Department provided all respondents, including those 
that did not respond (or did not respond adequately) to the Q&V 
questionnaire, with notice informing them of the consequences of their 
failure to respond adequately to the Q&V questionnaire in this case, 
pursuant to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, these companies did not 
respond as requested. With respect to MMZ and Guven Boru, the former 
stated it would not continue to participate in the proceeding, and the 
latter failed to serve petitioners with proprietary versions of its 
questionnaire responses in a timely fashion, destroyed one sales 
database before providing it to petitioners, and failed to respond in a 
timely fashion to four of the Department's supplemental questionnaires. 
This constitutes a failure on the part of these companies to cooperate 
to the best of their ability to comply with a request for information 
by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Tariff 
Act. Because these companies did not provide the information requested, 
section 782(e) of the Tariff Act is not applicable.
    Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that the companies that failed to respond adequately to the Q&V 
questionnaire and the two mandatory respondents (MMZ and Guven Boru) 
failed to cooperate to the best of their ability and, therefore, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse 
inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow 
Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000) (the Department 
applied total AFA where the respondent failed to respond to the 
antidumping questionnaire).

Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act authorizes 
the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a 
final determination, a previous administrative review, or other 
information placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the 
SAA at 829-831. It is the Department's practice to use the highest 
calculated rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent 
fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary 
information and there are no other respondents. See, e.g., Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose 
From Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). 
Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned 
to each uncooperative respondent the highest margin alleged in the 
petition, as referenced in the Initiation Notice, of 41.71 percent. See 
Initiation Notice at 40278.
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Tariff 
Act provides that when the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition) rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent 
practicable, information from independent sources that are reasonably 
at its disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See SAA at 870. As stated in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825, 11843 
(March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance 
of the information used. The Department's regulations state that 
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for 
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870.
    For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate 
information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the 
information in the Petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for 
purposes of this preliminary determination. See Initiation Checklist at 
pages 9 and 10. See also Initiation Notice at 40277. We examined 
evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition to determine the 
probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition for use as AFA 
for purposes of this preliminary determination. During our pre-
initiation analysis we examined the key elements of the export-price 
and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to derive margins. 
During our pre-initiation analysis we also examined information from 
various independent sources provided either in the Petition or in 
supplements to the Petition that corroborates key elements of the 
export-price and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to 
derive estimated margins. Id.
    The petitioners calculated export price (EP) in two ways: by use of 
a price quote from a U.S. dealer and by use of the average unit values 
(AUVs) for import data from the Bureau of the Census IM145 import 
statistics.
    When based on the price quote, the petitioners deducted an amount 
for international freight, and also a value of three percent of the 
U.S. price to cover inland freight from the U.S. port to the U. S. 
dealer, as well as the U.S. dealer's expenses and profit. See Volume II 
of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 4. 
The three percent figure is based on an affidavit from a U.S. producer 
of light-walled rectangular tubing, who stated that three percent is 
the standard mark-up in the industry. See Volume II of the Supplement 
to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 1. We then compared the 
U.S. price quote to the AUVs for this period and confirmed that the 
value of the U.S. price quote was consistent with the AUVs.
    The petitioners also calculated EP based on AUVs. In the Petition 
of June 27, 2007, the petitioners included figures from January--March 
of 2006 in their calculation of AUV. See Volume II of the Petition at 
Exhibit I-3. The Department requested that Petitioner recalculate AUVs 
to exclude the January--March 2006 import figures. Additionally, the 
Department requested that the Petitioner exclude HTSUS number 
7306.69.50.00 from the calculation of AUVs, as this number does not 
include LWR merchandise that would be subject to the investigation. The 
petitioners corrected the calculation as requested by the Department. 
See Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at 
pages 5-

[[Page 5513]]

6, and at Exhibit 3. The petitioners did not make an adjustment for 
international freight because they calculated the AUV prices on the FAS 
value of the merchandise. See Volume II of the Supplement to the 
Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 3.
    U.S. official import statistics (e.g., AUVs from the Bureau of the 
Census IM145 import statistics) are sources that we consider reliable. 
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 48538, 48540 
(August 18, 2005), (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan, 70 FR 
65886 (November 1, 2005)). Further, we obtained no other information 
that would make us question the reliability of the pricing information 
provided in the petition. Therefore, based on our examination of the 
aforementioned information, we consider the petitioner's calculation of 
net U.S. prices corroborated.
    The petitioners based normal value on two price quotes from each of 
two Turkish producers of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube. See 
Volume II of the Petition at page II-11 and Exhibit II-27 and Volume II 
of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 2. 
The petitioners obtained these prices by engaging a consultant, who 
hired a research firm with an agent in Turkey. See Volume II of the 
Petition at II-12, Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, and 
Memorandum to the File, ``Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,'' 
dated July 17, 2007. In one case, this research firm obtained price 
quotations directly from the manufacturer. See Memorandum to the File, 
``Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,'' dated July 17, 2007. In 
another case, they were referred by the manufacturer to a distributor. 
Id. These price quotations identified specific products, terms of sales 
and payment terms. See Volume II of the Petition at II-12, Volume II of 
the Supplement to the Petition, and Memorandum to the File, ``Telephone 
Call to Market Research Firm,'' dated July 17, 2007. Where appropriate, 
the petitioners made a deduction for freight, selling expenses, 
discount, and profit.
    Based on our examination of the aforementioned, we consider the 
petitioner's calculation of normal value, based on price quotations, 
corroborated. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity 
of the information underlying the derivation of margins in the Petition 
by examining source documents as well as publicly available 
information, we preliminarily determine the margins in the Petition are 
reliable for the purposes of this investigation.
    In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at 
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate the selected margin 
is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, 
in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department 
disregarded the highest margin as ``best information available'' (the 
predecessor to ``facts available'') because the margin was based on 
another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an 
unusually high dumping margin.
    In American Silicon Technologies v. United States, 273 F. Supp. 2d 
1342, 1346 (CIT 2003), the court found the adverse facts-available rate 
bore a ``rational relationship'' to the respondent's ``commercial 
practices,'' and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre-initiation stage 
of this investigation, we confirmed the calculation of margins in the 
Petition (e.g., prices, expenses, adjustments, etc.) reflects the 
commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of 
investigation. See Memorandum to the File, ``Telephone Call to Market 
Research Firm,'' dated July 17, 2007. Further, no information has been 
presented in the investigation that calls into question the relevance 
of this information. As such, we preliminarily determine the highest 
margin in the Petition, which we determined during our pre-initiation 
analysis, was based on adequate and accurate information and which we 
have corroborated for purposes of this preliminary determination. 
Therefore, it is relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for the 
uncooperative respondents in this investigation.
    Similar to our position in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in Polyethylene 
Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is 
the first proceeding involving these companies, there are no probative 
alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated 
in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily 
determining it to be relevant for the uncooperative respondents in this 
investigation, we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate 
``to the extent practicable.'' See section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, 19 
CFR 351.308(d), and NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 
1336 (CIT 2004) (stating, ``pursuant to the `to the extent practicable' 
language * * * the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory 
when not feasible''). Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 
41.71 percent in the Initiation Notice has probative value. 
Consequently, with respect to MMZ, Guven Boru, and the other 
uncooperative respondents (Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Goktas 
Tube, Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat 
ve Ticaret, Ozgur Boru, Ozmak Makina ve Elektrik Sanayi, Seamless Steel 
Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel Pipe Inc., and Yusan 
Industries, Ltd.), we have applied the margin rate of 41.71 percent, 
the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of 
initiation. See Initiation Notice at 40278.

All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that, where the 
estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all 
exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de 
minimis or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Tariff Act, 
the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated 
all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually 
investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to 
assign as the all-others rate the simple average of the margins in the 
petition. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Glycine from Japan, 72 FR 67271, 67272 (November 28, 
2007). See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia, 69 FR 
34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004). Consistent with our practice we used the 
rates in the Petition that were considered in the Department's 
initiation to calculate a simple average to be assigned as the all-
others rate. That simple average, 27.04 percent, is derived from the 
following petition rates: 36.43 percent, 29.08 percent, 19.67 percent, 
15.28 percent, 41.71 percent, 30.08 percent, 24.31 percent, and 19.75 
percent. See Volume II of the

[[Page 5514]]

Supplement to the Petition dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 4.
    This 27.04 percent rate will be applied to the following seven 
responsive firms that were not selected as mandatory respondents: 
Borusan Mannesmann Boru, Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., 
Noksel Steel Pipe Co., Ozborsan Boru San. Ve Tic. A.S., Ozdemir Boru 
Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti., Toscelik Profil Ve Sac End. A.S, and Yucel 
Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping 
margins exist for the period April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                    Producer/Exporter                     average margin
                                                           (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guven Boru Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi....           41.71
MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San. ve Tic. A.S............           41.71
Anadolu Boru............................................           41.71
Ayata Metal Industry....................................           41.71
Goktas Tube.............................................           41.71
Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S......................           41.71
Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret.................           41.71
Ozgur Boru..............................................           41.71
Ozmak Makina ve Elektrik Sanayi.........................           41.71
Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor)...............           41.71
Umran Steel Pipe Inc....................................           41.71
Yusan Industries, Ltd...................................           41.71
Borusan Mannesmann Boru.................................           27.04
Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S.............           27.04
Noksel Steel Pipe Co....................................           27.04
Ozborsan Boru San. ve Tic. A.S..........................           27.04
Ozdemir Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti.................           27.04
Toscelik Profil ve Sac End. A.S.........................           27.04
Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S.....................           27.04
All Others..............................................           27.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube 
from Turkey that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after 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 margins, as indicated 
in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for the firms listed above 
will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; 
(2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but 
the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer 
of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or 
exporters will be 27.04 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

Comission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have 
notified the Commission of the Department's preliminary affirmative 
determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether imports of light-walled rectangular Pipe and tube from Turkey 
are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. 
industry.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than fifty days after the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days 
from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, 
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to 
five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties 
submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a 
copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Tariff Act, the Department 
will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal 
briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested 
party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the 
hearing will be scheduled two days after the deadline for submitting 
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room 
to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, 
and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. 
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in 
a hearing 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 of the publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing oral presentations 
will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: January 23, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-1665 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P