[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 109 (Thursday, June 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31970-31974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-910


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has determined 
that circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (``CWP'') 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 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The 
final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ``Final 
Determination Margins'' section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin or Maisha Cryor, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-5831, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On January 15, 2008, the Department published in the Federal 
Register its preliminary determination that CWP from PRC is being, or 
is likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in the 
Act. See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 2445, 
2451 (January 15, 2008) (``Preliminary Determination''). For the 
Preliminary Determination, the Department calculated a zero percent 
dumping margin for Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Yulong''). On 
March 12, 2008, Petitioners,\1\ mandatory respondent Yulong, separate 
rate applicants Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Tianjin Baloai 
International Trade Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Import and Export 
Co., Ltd., and Shandong Fubo Group Co. (collectively, ``Weifang East 
Pipe''), and two U.S. importers of subject merchandise, SeAH Steel 
America, Ltd. (``SeAH'') and Western International Forest Products, LLC 
(``Western''), filed case briefs pursuant to the Preliminary 
Determination.\2\ On March 20, 2008, Petitioners, Yulong, and one U.S. 
importer, MAN Ferrostaal Inc., Commercial Metals Company, and QT 
Trading LP (collectively, ``MAN Ferrostaal''), filed rebuttal 
briefs.\3\ On March 24, 2008, the Department held a public hearing. 
Subsequent to the submission of briefs and the hearing, the Department 
received an allegation that a PRC pipe company involved in the 
investigation submitted falsified documents to the Department. 
Following the Department's request for comments on this allegation, on 
April 7, 2008, Yulong withdrew from the investigation and stated that 
it did not contest the allegation. See Amended Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Carbon 
Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 22130, 
22131 (April 24, 2008) (``Amended Preliminary Determination'') In light 
of Yulong's withdrawal from the investigation, on April 24, 2008, the 
Department published its Amended Preliminary Determination, in which 
the Department applied total adverse facts available (``AFA'') to 
Yulong and denied Yulong a separate rate, treating it as part of the 
PRC-wide entity. In addition, the Department assigned a new rate to the 
PRC-wide entity and provided parties with the opportunity to submit a 
second set of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On April 28, 2008, 
Weifang East Pipe submitted a case brief pursuant to the Amended 
Preliminary Determination.\4\ On April 30, 2008, Petitioners submitted 
a rebuttal brief in response to Weifang East Pipe's April Case 
Brief.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners in this investigation are Allied Tube & Conduit, 
Sharon Tube Company, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc., Western Tube & Conduit 
Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Wheatland Tube Co., i.e., the 
Ad Hoc Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From China, and the United 
Steelworkers.
    \2\ Petitioners' March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter 
referred to as the ``Petitioners' March Case Brief.'' The Yulong 
March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the 
``Yulong March Case Brief.'' The Weifang East Pipe March 12, 2008, 
case brief is hereinafter referred to as the ``Weifang East Pipe 
March Case Brief.'' The SeAH March 12, 2008, case brief is 
hereinafter referred to as the ``SeAH March Case Brief.'' The 
Western March 12, 2008, case brief is hereinafter referred to as the 
``Western March Case Brief.''
    \3\ Petitioners' March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is hereinafter 
referred to as the ``Petitioners' March Rebuttal Brief.'' The Yulong 
March 20, 2008, rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the 
``Yulong March Rebuttal Brief.'' The MAN Ferrostaal March 20, 2008, 
rebuttal brief is hereinafter referred to as the ``MAN Ferrostaal 
March Rebuttal Brief.''
    \4\ The Weifang East Pipe April 28, 2008, case brief is 
hereinafter referred to as the ``Weifang East Pipe April Case 
Brief.''
    \5\ Petitioners' April 30, 2008, rebuttal brief is hereinafter 
referred to as the ``Petitioners' April Rebuttal Brief.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice in its entirety (``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum''). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which 
we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this 
notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public 
document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Main 
Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
memorandum are identical in content.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2006, through 
March 31, 2007.

Changes Since the Amended Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made no changes 
in our margin calculations since the Department's Amended Preliminary 
Determination.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers certain welded carbon 
quality steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, and with an 
outside diameter of 0.372 inches (9.45 mm) or more, but not more than 
16 inches (406.4 mm), whether or not stenciled, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end 
finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded 
and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., ASTM, proprietary, or 
other), generally known as standard pipe and structural pipe (they may 
also be referred to as circular, structural, or mechanical tubing).

[[Page 31971]]

    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 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

    In its March case brief, Petitioners argued that the Department 
should revise; 1) the scope of the investigation to be based upon end-
use application, and 2) the definition of ``painted.'' For the reasons 
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we have not revised 
the scope of the investigation. However, we have revised the definition 
of the term ``painted,'' and have updated the scope accordingly. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

Non-Market Economy Treatment

    In the Preliminary Determination and Amended Preliminary 
Determination, the Department considered 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, 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 Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, 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). In its March case brief, 
Weifang East Pipe argued that the PRC should be granted market economy 
status. See Weifang East Pipe March Case Brief, at 6. For the reasons 
discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we disagree with 
Weifang East Pipe and have continued to treat the PRC as an NME. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in 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. See 
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 amplified by 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''), and Section 
351.107(d) of the Department's regulations.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the following 
separate rate applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-
rate status: Wai Ming (Tianjin) Int'l Trading Co., Ltd.; Weifang East 
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Eric Steel 
Pipe Co., Ltd.; Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd.; Wah Cit 
Enterprises; Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.; 
Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Baolai Int'l Trade 
Co., Ltd.; Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd.; Benxi Northern Pipes Co., 
Ltd.; Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.; Huludao Steel 
Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Xingyuda Import & Export Co. Ltd.; 
Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Rizhao Xingye Import & Export 
Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Tianjin 
No. 1 Steel Rolled Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Yongjie Import & Export Co., 
Ltd.; Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Company, Ltd.; Qingdao 
Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; 
Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Lets Win Steel 
Machinery Co., Ltd.; and Shenyang BOYU M/E Co., Ltd.
    No party has commented on the eligibility of these companies for 
separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find 
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by these 
companies demonstrates both a de jure and de facto absence of 
government control with respect to their respective exports of the 
merchandise under investigation. Thus, we continue to find that they 
are eligible for separate-rate status. Normally the separate rate is 
determined based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins 
established for exporters and producers individually investigated, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA. See 
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In this case, given the absence of 
participating

[[Page 31972]]

respondents and having calculated no margins, we have assigned to the 
separate rate companies the simple average of the margins alleged in 
the petition. See Amended Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 22133.
    We determined in the Preliminary Determination that Shandong Fubo 
Group Co. (``Fubo'') and Tianjin Youcheng Galvanized Steel Pipe Co., 
Ltd. (``Youcheng'') are not entitled to a separate rate. We received no 
comments on this denial of separate rates and, for the final 
determination, continue to find that Fubo and Youcheng are not entitled 
to a separate rate.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain 
companies did not respond to our requests for information. See 
Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 2451. In the Preliminary 
Determination we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the 
PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free 
of government control over their export activities. In addition, in the 
Amended Preliminary Determination, the Department applied total AFA to 
Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Yulong''). We determined, as 
AFA, that Yulong was not eligible for a separate rate, and, for the 
final determination, we are treating Yulong as part of the PRC-wide 
entity. No additional information was placed on the record with respect 
to any of these companies after the Preliminary Determination or the 
Amended Preliminary Determination. Therefore, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use 
of facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.
    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 ``Statement 
of Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-
316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA''). We determined that, because the 
PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the 
Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a 
NME country are subject to government control and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section 
below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide entity rate) to all other 
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not 
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo 
from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide 
entity rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for 
entries from the respondents which are listed in the ``Final 
Determination Margins'' section below.
    In the Amended Preliminary Determination, we assigned to the PRC-
wide entity the highest margin alleged in the petition, as revised in 
Petitioners' supplemental responses, 85.55 percent. See Amended 
Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 22133. We received no comments on 
this rate. Therefore, for the final determination, we have continued to 
assign to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 85.55 percent.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
submitted. See Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, e.g., 
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).
    Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents, to 
corroborate the 85.55 percent margin used as adverse facts available 
for the PRC-wide entity, we relied upon our pre-initiation analysis of 
the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition. See 
Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: Circular Welded Carbon 
Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, (Initiation 
Checklist) (``Initiation Checklist'') (July 5, 2007). During the 
initiation stage, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in 
the petition and the supplemental information provided by Petitioners 
to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the 
petition. During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the 
information used as the basis of export price and NV in the petition, 
and the calculations used to derive the alleged margins. Also during 
our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from various 
independent sources provided either in the petition or, based on our 
requests, in supplements to the petition, which corroborated key 
elements of the export price and NV calculations. Id. We received no 
comments as to the relevance or probative value of this information. 
Therefore, for the final determination, the Department finds that the 
rates derived from the petition for purposes of initiation have 
probative value for the purpose of being selected as the AFA rate 
assigned to the PRC-wide entity.

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    On December 11, 2007, the Department preliminarily found that 
critical circumstances existed for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise, including the separate rate applicant companies and 
companies subject to the PRC-wide rate. The Department affirmed this 
preliminary finding in the Preliminary Determination and the Amended 
Preliminary Determination. Pursuant to the Preliminary Determination, 
we received comments on this issue from SeAH and Western. See SeAH 
March Case Brief, at 3; see also Western March Case Brief, at 1. These 
companies argued that we should no longer find that critical 
circumstances exist for certain importers that had placed information 
on the record of the proceeding to support claims that their imports 
were not part of the ``massive'' imports found by the Department, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206. We also received comments from Petitioners, 
who support the preliminary finding of critical circumstances for all 
PRC exporters, but who recommend certain modifications to the 
Department's analysis. See Petitioners' March Rebuttal Brief, at 19.
    Based on the comments from interested parties, we have revised our 
analysis, but continue to find that critical circumstances exist with 
regard

[[Page 31973]]

to all imports of CWP from the PRC. For further details, see the Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comments 11-13; see also, Memorandum from 
Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe (``CWP'') from the People's Republic 
of China (``PRC'') - Final Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances,'' dated May 29, 2008.

Combination Rates

    In Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Circular Welded 
Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
36663 (July 5, 2007) (``Initiation Notice''), the Department stated 
that it would calculate combination rates for 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.''

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the POI:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Exporter                                  Producer                          Weighted-Average Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware        Xuzhou Guang Huan Steel Tube Products Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................
Wuxi Fastube Industry Co.,                         Wuxi Fastube Industry Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Ltd.........................
Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating   Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Industrial.Co.,Ltd.\6\......
Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co.,                           Wuxi Eric Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Ltd.........................
Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe                Qingdao Xiangxing Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................
Wah Cit Enterprises..........    Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.                         69.20
Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe     Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,.Ltd.                         69.20
 Industrial Co., Ltd.........
Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe                   Hengshui Jinghua Steel Pipe Co.,Ltd.                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................
Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-           Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co, Ltd.                         69.20
 Making Co., Ltd.............
Weifang East Steel Pipe Co.,                     Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Ltd.........................
Shijiazhuang Zhongqing Imp &                    Bazhou Zhuofa Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Exp Co., Ltd................
Tianjin Baolai Int'l Trade     Tianjin Jinghai County Baolai Business and Industry                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................                                            Co., Ltd.
Wai Ming (Tianjin) Int'l       Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot-dipped Galvanized Steel Pipes                         69.20
 Trading Co., Ltd............                                            Co., Ltd.
Kunshan Lets Win Steel                  Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 MachineryCo., Ltd...........
Shenyang Boyu M/E Co., Ltd...  Bazhou Dong Sheng Hot-dipped Galvanized Steel Pipes                         69.20
                                                                         Co., Ltd.
Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes                           Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd.                         69.20
 Ltd.........................
Benxi Northern Pipes Co.,                           Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Ltd.........................
Shanghai Metals & Minerals                       Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co.                         69.20
 Import & Export Corp........
Shanghai Metals & Minerals                          Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Import & Export Corp........
Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial                    Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co.                         69.20
 Co..........................
Tianjin Xingyuda Import &                         Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Group                         69.20
 Export Co., Ltd.............
Tianjin Xingyuda Import &                         Tianjin Xingyunda Steel Pipe Co.                         69.20
 Export Co., Ltd.............
Tianjin Xingyuda Import &                         Tianjin Lituo Steel Products Co.                         69.20
 Export Co., Ltd.............
Tianjin Xingyuda Import &           Tangshan Fengnan District Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Xinlida Export Co., Ltd.....
Jiangyin Jianye Metal                     Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Products Co., Ltd...........
Rizhao Xingye Import & Export                     Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................
Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled                          Tianjin Hexing Steel Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................
Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled                         Tianjin Ruitong Steel Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................
Tianjin No. 1 Steel Rolled                             Tianjin Yayi Industrial Co.                         69.20
 Co., Ltd....................
Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery        Kunshan Hongyuan Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Manufacture Co., Ltd........
Qingdao Yongjie Import &                          Shandong Xinyuan Group Co., Ltd.                         69.20
 Export Co., Ltd.............
PRC-Wide Entity\7\...........  ...................................................                         85.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the Preliminary Determination, the Department incorrectly identified Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating
  Industrial Company, Ltd., as Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Co., Ltd. We note, however, that in the
  Department's subsequent instructions to CBP to suspend liquidation and require cash deposits for CWP from PRC,
  the Department correctly identified Jiangsu Guoqiang Zinc-Plating Industrial Company, Ltd.
\7\ In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that the Tianjin Shuangjie Group is part of the PRC-
  wide entity. In the Amended Preliminary Determination, the Department found that Yulong is part of the PRC-
  wide entity.

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).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing

[[Page 31974]]

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to suspend 
liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise as described in the 
``Scope of Investigation'' section, that are entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after October 17, 2007, which is 90 
days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determination 
in the Federal Register, except for imports from Yulong. In specific 
regard to Yulong, we are directing CBP to continue to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise as described in the 
``Scope of Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after January 25, 2008, which is 90 
days prior to the date of publication of the amended preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register. See Amended Preliminary 
Determination. We will instruct CBP to continue to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension 
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will 
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the 
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or 
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be 
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further 
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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

Appendix

Comment 1: Whether the Scope Language Should Include End-Use Definition 
and Reference to End-Use Applications
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Graduate the People's Republic 
of China to Market Economy Status
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Calculate a Company-Specific 
Separate Rate for Weifang East Pipe
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Find Weifang East Pipe to be a 
Market-Oriented Enterprise
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Utilize Weifang East Pipe's 
Actual Hot-Rolled Costs When Calculating an AD Margin Due to the 
Existence of the Companion Countervailing Duty Investigation
Comment 6: Whether a Double-Remedy Results from the Simultaneous 
Application of Non-Market Economy AD and Countervailing Duty 
Methodologies
Comment 7: Whether the Department's Amended Preliminary Determination 
Violated Legal Principles
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Employ Weifang East Pipe's 
Suggested Analytical Approach For Calculating Its Company-Specific 
Margin
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Assign Weifang East Pipe's 
Company-Specific AD Rate to All Cooperative Separate Rate Respondents
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Make an Adjustment for 
Countervailable Export Subsidies
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Use the Highest Petition 
Margin as the Adverse Facts Available Rate
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Find That Critical 
Circumstances Do Not Exist for Yulong
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Analyze Critical 
Circumstances on an Importer-Specific Basis in its Critical 
Circumstances Analysis
Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Include June 2007 in the Base 
Period Rather than the Comparison Period in its Critical Circumstances 
Analysis
[FR Doc. E8-12608 Filed 6-4-08; 8:45 am]
Billing Code: 3510-DS-S