[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 109 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31966-31970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-911]


Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination 
and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') has determined 
that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and 
exporters of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (``CWP'') from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). For information on the 
estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section, below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, Damian Felton or Salim 
Bhabhrawala, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0189, (202) 482-0133 or (202) 482-1784 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioner

    The Petitioners in this investigation are the Ad Hoc Coalition for 
Fair Pipe Imports from the People's Republic of China and the United 
States Steel Workers (collectively, ``Petitioners'').

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of 
investigation, is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

Case History

    The following events have occurred since the announcement of the 
preliminary determination published in the Federal Register on November 
13, 2007. See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination; Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances; and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 72 FR 63875 (November 13, 
2007) (``Preliminary Determination'').
    On November 13, 2007, the Department issued questionnaires to 
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (``East Pipe''); Zhejiang Kingland 
Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd., Kingland Group Co., Ltd., Beijing 
Kingland Century Technologies Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline 
Industry Co., Ltd., and Shanxi Kingland Pipeline Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, ``Kingland'') and, the Government of the People's 
Republic of China (``GOC'') regarding new subsidy allegations made by 
petitioners on October 3, 2007. We received responses to these 
questionnaires from Kingland on November 22, 2007, and from the GOC and 
East Pipe on December 5, 2007.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to East Pipe and Kingland on 
November 16, 2007, and to the GOC on November 19, 2007. We received 
responses to these questionnaires from Kingland on December 4, 2007, 
from East Pipe on December 12, 2007, and from the GOC on December 17, 
2007. We issued additional supplemental questionnaires to Kingland on 
December 14, 2007, and East Pipe on December 17, 2007. We received 
responses to these questionnaires from Kingland and East Pipe on 
December 27, 2007.
    The GOC, East Pipe, Kingland, Petitioners, and interested parties 
also submitted factual information, comments, and arguments at numerous 
instances prior to the final determination based on various deadlines 
for submissions of factual information and/or arguments established by 
the Department subsequent to the Preliminary Determination.
    From January 14 through January 23, 2008, we conducted verification 
of the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOC, Kingland, and East 
Pipe.
    On April 9, 2008, we issued our post-preliminary determination 
regarding the provision of land for less than adequate remuneration and 
new subsidy allegations. We addressed our preliminary findings in an 
April 9, 2008, memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, entitled Post-Preliminary Findings for the 
Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration and New Subsidy 
Allegations, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'').
    We received case briefs from the GOC, East Pipe, Kingland, 
Petitioners, certain members of the Specialty Steel Industry of North 
America (``SSINA''), United States Steel Corporation (``US Steel''), 
Western International Forest Products, LLC (``Western''), MAN 
Ferrostaal, Inc., Commercial Metals Company and QT Trading LP 
(collectively, ``MAN Ferrostaal''), and SeAH Steel America (``SSA'') on 
April 17, 2008. The same parties submitted rebuttal briefs on April 22 
and April 29, 2008. We held a hearing for this investigation on May 5, 
2008.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon 
quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an 
outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 
16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end 
finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded 
and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., ASTM, proprietary, or 
other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may 
also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing).
    Specifically, the term ``carbon quality'' includes products in 
which (a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other 
contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 
weight; and (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, 
by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    Standard pipe is made primarily to American Society for Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') specifications, but

[[Page 31967]]

can be made to other specifications. Standard pipe is made primarily to 
ASTM specifications A-53, A-135, and A-795. Structural pipe is made 
primarily to ASTM specifications A-252 and A-500. Standard and 
structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications 
rather than to industry specifications. This is often the case, for 
example, with fence tubing. Pipe multiple-stenciled to a standard and/
or structural specification and to any other specification, such as the 
American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is also 
covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical 
description set forth above and also has one or more of the following 
characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches 
(50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted surface 
finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish. (The term 
``painted'' does not include coatings to inhibit rust in transit, such 
as varnish, but includes coatings such as polyester.)
    The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) pipe suitable 
for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, condensers, refining 
furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) 
mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn; (c) finished electrical 
conduit; (d) finished scaffolding; (e) tube and pipe hollows for 
redrawing; (f) oil country tubular goods produced to API 
specifications; and (g) line pipe produced to only API specifications.
    The pipe products that are the subject of this investigation are 
currently classifiable in HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 
7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 
7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90, 7306.50.10.00, 
7306.50.50.50, 7306.50.50.70, 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 
7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. However, the product description, and 
not the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the 
United States falls within the scope of the investigation.

Scope Comments

    The scope listed above has changed from the Preliminary 
Determination.
    On December 19, 2007, Petitioners requested that the Department 
clarify the scope of this investigation and the companion antidumping 
duty investigation of CWP from the PRC. We have analyzed the request 
and comments of the interested parties regarding the scope of this 
investigation. Our position on these comments is discussed in the final 
determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of CWP 
from the PRC.

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the 
Act), section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. 
Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject 
merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury 
to a U.S. industry. On August 3, 2007, the ITC published its 
preliminary determination 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 from China of circular welded 
carbon-quality steel pipe. 72 FR 43295.

Critical Circumstances

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that 
critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of circular welded 
pipe from certain PRC exporters, pursuant to section 703(e) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.206. Preliminary Determination, 72 FR at 63879-80. The 
Department continues to find critical circumstances in this final 
determination. For further discussion on this issue, see ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination,'' from Stephen J. 
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David 
M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 
29, 2008 (``Decision Memorandum'') at Comments 10, 11, and 12, and 
Memorandum to the File Re ``Critical Circumstances Analysis for 
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. Import Shipment 
Analysis for Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd. and 
``All Others'' (May 29, 2008) (``Final Critical Circumstances 
Memorandum'') (this memorandum is on file in the Department's CRU).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an Appendix 
is a list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have 
responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) 
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the 
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so 
without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous

[[Page 31968]]

administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, attached to H.R. Rep. 
No. 103-316, Vol. I at 870 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3773, 
4163 (``SAA''). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, that the 
Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the 
best alternative information. See SAA at 869.
    The Department has concluded that it is appropriate to base the 
final determination for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. 
(``Shuangjie'') on facts otherwise available. Shuangjie failed to 
respond at all to the Department's October 24, 2007, request for 
shipment data relating to the allegation of critical circumstances, did 
not respond to the Department's October 25, 2007, supplemental 
questionnaire, and finally, on October 31, 2007, withdrew all of its 
proprietary information from the record.
    Consequently, the use of facts otherwise available is warranted 
under section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In selecting from among the facts available, the Department has 
determined that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act because, in addition to not fully responding to all 
of our requests for information, Shuangjie withdrew from all 
participation in the investigation and did not provide the Department 
with the opportunity to verify the information it did submit. Thus, 
Shuangjie failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, 
and our final determination is based on total AFA.
    We have also determined that it is appropriate to apply facts 
available with respect to certain information that the GOC failed to 
provide, or information that could not be verified. Specifically, 
despite the Department's requests to submit sub-national government 
plans relating to the steel industry in the PRC, the GOC stated that 
none existed. However, at verification the Department discovered the 
existence of the Shandong Provincial Steel Plan. Additionally, the 
Department was unable to verify information regarding the level of 
state ownership in the HRS industry in the PRC because the GOC 
misrepresented the source of the data. In both instances, the GOC 
failed to act to the best of its ability and, consequently, application 
of AFA is warranted.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. It is the Department's practice to 
select, as AFA, the highest calculated rate in any segment of the 
proceeding. See, e.g., Certain In-shell Roasted Pistachios from the 
Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 66165 (November 13, 2006), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of Programs'' 
& Comment 1.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role 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, 8932 (February 
23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. In choosing the appropriate 
balance between providing a respondent with an incentive to respond 
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the 
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior 
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior 
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if 
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less.'' See Rhone Poulenc, 
Inc. v. United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
    Therefore, for every program based on the provision of goods at 
less than adequate remuneration, the Department used the Kingland rate 
for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than adequate 
remuneration. For value added tax (``VAT'') programs, we are unable to 
utilize company-specific rates from this proceeding because neither 
respondent received any countervailable subsidies from these subsidy 
programs. Therefore, for VAT programs we are also applying the highest 
subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance 
is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for less than 
adequate remuneration.
    Similarly, for the grant programs, we are not relying on the 
highest calculated final rate because it is de minimis. Instead, we are 
applying the highest calculated final subsidy rate, which in this 
instance is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled steel for 
less than adequate remuneration.
    Finally, for the six alleged income tax programs pertaining to 
either the reduction of the income tax rates or exemption from income 
tax, we have applied an adverse inference that Shuangjie paid no income 
tax during the period of investigation (i.e., calendar year 2006). The 
standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent, 
plus a 3 percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest 
possible benefit for these six income tax rate programs is 33 percent. 
We are applying the 33 percent AFA rate on a combined basis (i.e., the 
six programs combined provided a 33 percent benefit). This 33 percent 
AFA rate does not apply to income tax deduction or credit programs. For 
income tax deduction or credit programs, we are applying the highest 
subsidy rate for any program otherwise listed, which in this instance 
is Kingland's rate for the provision of hot-rolled-steel at less than 
adequate remuneration.
    In a change from the Preliminary Determination, we are not 
assigning rates for alleged provincial subsidy programs where record 
evidence shows that Tianjin Shuangjie was not located in those 
provinces. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 15.
    We do not need to corroborate these rates because they are not 
considered secondary information as they are based on information 
obtained in the course of this investigation, pursuant to section 
776(c) of the Act. See also SAA at 870.
    Regarding the application of adverse facts available to the GOC, we 
have treated companies as state-owned

[[Page 31969]]

where the GOC did not provide information regarding the companies' 
ownership. Also, where the provincial steel plan was not provided, we 
are finding that policy lending existed in that province. See Decision 
Memorandum at ``Analysis of Programs;'' Comment 3; and Comment 8.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 
calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation, 
East Pipe, Kingland and Shuangjie. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act 
states that for companies not investigated, we will determine an ``all 
others'' rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy 
rates established for exporters and producers individually 
investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy 
rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776. As 
Shuangjie's rate was calculated under section 776 of the Act, it is not 
included in the ``all others'' rate.
    Nothwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the 
Act, we have not calculated the ``all others'' rate by weight averaging 
the rates of East Pipe and Kingland, because doing so risks disclosure 
of proprietary information. Therefore, we have calculated a simple 
average of the two responding firms' rates. Since there were either no 
or de minimis countervailable export subsidies for Kingland and East 
Pipe and because the ``all others'' rate is a simple average based on 
the individually investigated exporters and producers, the ``all 
others'' rate does not include export subsidies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net Subsidy
                  Exporter/Manufacturer                        Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd........................   29.57[percnt]
Zhejiang Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd.,    44.86 [percnt]
 and affiliated companies...............................
Tianjin Shuangjie Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Tianjin           615.92[percnt]
 Shuangjie Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Wa Song
 Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; and Tianjin Shuanglian
 Galvanizing Products Co., Ltd..........................
All Others..............................................   37.22[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because we preliminarily determined that critical circumstances 
exist for entries of CWP manufactured/exported by Kingland, Shuangjie 
and ``all other'' Chinese manufacturers/exporters and pursuant to 
sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend 
liquidation of entries of CWP manufactured/exported by Kingland, 
Shuangjie and ``all other'' Chinese exports of CWP which were entered 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 13, 
2007, and to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated 
entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after August 15, 2007 (90 days before the date of publication of the 
Preliminary Determination. Also, in accordance with section 703(d) of 
the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation 
for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered on or 
after March 12, 2008, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of 
entries made from August 15, 2007, through March 12, 2008. Preliminary 
Determination, 72 FR at 6386.
    For entries of CWP manufactured/exported by East Pipe, we did not 
instruct CBP to suspend liquidation because we preliminarily determined 
that East Pipe did not receive any countervailable subsidies.
    We will issue a countervailing duty order and reinstate the 
suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act (for all 
companies including East Pipe) if the International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issues a final affirmative injury determination, and will 
require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such 
entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC 
determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not 
exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties 
deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of 
liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an APO, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration.

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury 
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties 
subject to an administrative protective order (``APO'') of their 
responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: The Department's Authority to Apply the Countervailing Duty 
Law to China
Comment 2: Subsidies Prior to China's Accession to the World Trade 
Organization
Comment 3: Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')
Comment 4: Attribution of Subsidies Received by Affiliates of Zhejiang 
Kingland Pipeline and Technologies Co., Ltd.
Comment 5: Scope of the Investigation
Comment 6: Sales Denominator for Weifang East Steel Pipe Company Ltd.
Comment 7: Provision of Hot-rolled Steel for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration
Comment 8: Government Policy Lending
Comment 9: Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
Comment 10: Critical Circumstances on an Importer Specific Basis
Comment 11: Base and Comparison Period for Critical Circumstances
Comment 12: Kingland Export Subsidy and Finding of Critical 
Circumstances
Comment 13: East Pipe Debt Forgiveness
Comment 14: Discount Rate
Comment 15: Programs Included in AFA Rate for Tianjin Shuangjie Steel 
Pipe Co., Ltd.

[[Page 31970]]

Comment 16: Double Remedy
[FR Doc. E8-12606 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S