[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51788-51796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20508]



[[Page 51788]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-930]


Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination

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

EFFECTIVE DATE:  September 5, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe 
(CWASPP) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), 
as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). The estimated dumping margins are shown in the ``Preliminary 
Determination'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3518 or 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 30, 2008, the Department received a petition concerning 
imports of CWASPP from the PRC filed in proper form by Bristol Metals, 
L.P., Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia USA, Inc., Outokumpu Stainless 
Pipe Inc., and the United Steel Workers of America (collectively, 
petitioners). The Department initiated an antidumping duty 
investigation of CWASPP from the PRC on February 19, 2008. See Circular 
Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 10221 
(February 26, 2008) (Initiation Notice).
    On February 20, 2008, the Department requested quantity and value 
(Q&V) information from the 11 companies that are identified in the 
petition as potential producers or exporters of CWASPP from the PRC. 
See Exhibit I-6, Volume I, of the January 30, 2008, Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (the petition). The 
Department received timely responses to its Q&V questionnaire from the 
following companies: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. (Jiuli), 
Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and Winner Machinery Enterprise 
Co., Ltd (collectively Winner). The other nine companies to which the 
Department sent Q&V questionnaires received the questionnaires but did 
not respond to them.
    On March 14, 2008, the International Trade Commission (ITC) 
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports of CWASPP from the PRC. See Welded 
Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe From China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-454 
and 731-TA-1144 (Preliminary), 73 FR 16911 (March 31, 2008). Also, in 
March 2008, petitioners and Winner submitted comments to the Department 
regarding the physical characteristics of subject merchandise that 
should be used in comparing sales prices with normal value.
    On April 28, 2008, the Department received separate-rate 
applications from Jiuli and Winner. On April 15, 2008, the Department 
selected Winner as a mandatory respondent and issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to the company. See memorandum regarding ``Selection of 
Respondents in the Antidumping Investigation of Circular Welded 
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated April 15, 2008 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). Winner 
submitted timely responses to the Department's questionnaire on May 13, 
2008, and June 3, 2008.
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received 
responses from Winner and Jiuli from April through August 2008. 
Petitioners submitted comments to the Department regarding Winner's 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses from June 
through July 2008.
    On June 2, 2008, the Department released a memorandum to interested 
parties which listed potential surrogate countries and invited 
interested parties to comment on surrogate country and surrogate value 
selection. During June and July 2008, petitioners and Winner submitted 
comments on the appropriate surrogate country and surrogate values. The 
submitted surrogate value data are from India, Thailand, the United 
States, and international websites.
    On June 10, 2008, petitioners requested postponement of the 
preliminary determination. On June 24, 2008, the Department extended 
this preliminary determination by fifty days. See Notice of 
Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 35658 (June 24, 2008).
    On August 15, 2008, Winner requested that the Department extend the 
final determination in this case. On August 20, 2008, Winner clarified 
and supplemented its extension request by identifying the length of the 
requested extension and by including a request to extend the 
provisional measures to six months. See the ``Postponement of Final 
Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures'' section of this 
notice below.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2007, through December 
31, 2007. This period comprises the two most recently completed fiscal 
quarters as of the month preceding the month in which the petition was 
filed (i.e., January 2008). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded 
austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in 
outside diameter. This merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') A-312 or ASTM A-
778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. 
ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are produced to meet 
ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or 
foreign specifications.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) welded stainless mechanical 
tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign 
specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining 
furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, 
ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) 
specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A-269, ASTM A-270 or comparable 
domestic or foreign specifications.
    The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 
7306.40.5005; 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 
7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010; 
7306.40.1015; 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 
7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes

[[Page 51789]]

only, the written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997) and Initiation Notice. The Department received comments 
concerning the scope of the CWASPP antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations from Prudential Stainless & Alloy LP (Prudential), a 
U.S. importer and distributor of subject merchandise, on March 10, 
2008, and rebuttal comments from petitioners on March 14, 2008. In 
addition, Prudential responded to petitioners rebuttal comments on 
April 28, 2008. Prudential requests that the Department limit the scope 
of the investigations by excluding from the scope all grades of ASTM A-
312, except the 304 and 316 series, and all Schedules (wall thickness) 
of stainless pressure pipe except Schedules 40S and 10S. Prudential 
contends that the grades of pipe that they seek to exclude from the 
scope are premium-priced, low-volume, specialty grades that do not 
compete with high-volume commodity products in the 304 and 316 series. 
Moreover, Prudential contends that the Schedules that they seek to 
exclude from the scope constitute a minority of what is produced by the 
domestic industry and thus these Schedules do not represent a threat to 
petitioners. Petitioners urge the Department not to modify the scope, 
noting that (1) the current scope is an accurate reflection of the 
products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief, (2) the 
proposed change to the scope would exclude products that are both 
manufactured by, and important to, the domestic industry and (3) the 
products that Prudential seeks to exclude were defined by the ITC as 
like-products in its preliminary investigation questionnaire. In 
rebuttal, Prudential adds that although some of the domestic industry 
does produce the products that it requests to be excluded from the 
scope (``the products at issue''), these products are not important to 
the domestic industry. Prudential asks the Department to determine 
whether or not the products at issue are important to the domestic 
industry by calculating the percentage of U.S. production of the 
merchandise under investigation represented by the products at issue.
    After considering parties' comments, the Department has decided not 
to modify the scope of the investigations. The starting point for 
determining whether merchandise is subject to an investigation is the 
petition. See 19 CFR 351.225(k)(1) (2001). See also Eckstrom 
Industries, Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (Fed. Cir. 
2001) (citing Smith Corona Corp. v. United States, 915 F.2d 683, 685 
(Fed. Cir. 1990)). While the Department does have the authority to 
define or clarify the scope of an investigation, the Department ``must 
exercise this authority in a manner which reflects the intent of the 
petition and the Department generally should not use its authority to 
define the scope of an investigation in a manner that would thwart the 
statutory mandate to provide the relief requested in the petition.'' 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada, 67 FR 15539 (April 2, 
2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum under Scope 
Issues (after Comment 49). Thus, ``absent an overarching reason to 
modify the scope in the petition, the Department accepts it.'' See id. 
The description of subject merchandise in the petition indicates that 
the products at issue are to be covered by the antidumping and 
countervailing investigations of CWASPP from the PRC. Additionally, in 
their comments, petitioners have confirmed that the scope, as currently 
written, is an accurate reflection of the products for which they seek 
relief. Therefore, the scope modifications proposed by Prudential are 
inconsistent with the intent of the petition and ``would thwart the 
statutory mandate to provide the relief requested in the petition.'' 
See id. Furthermore, Prudential's claims that the products at issue are 
``small-volume'' products that are unimportant to the domestic industry 
do not provide a basis for modifying the scope. For the above reasons, 
the Department has not modified the scope.

Non-Market Economy Treatment

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) 
country. In accordance with section 771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any 
determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof (TRBs), Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 
(December 18, 2003). The Department has not revoked the PRC's status as 
an NME country. Therefore, in this preliminary determination, we have 
treated the PRC as an NME country and applied our current NME 
methodology.

Selection of a Surrogate Country

    In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, the Department, 
pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, will generally base normal 
value (NV) on the value of the NME producer's factors of production. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of 
production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market economy 
countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to 
that of the NME country and are significant producers of merchandise 
comparable to the subject merchandise. The Department has determined 
that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are 
countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to 
that of the PRC. See memorandum regarding ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe 
(``C-WASP) Pipe'') from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request 
for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated May 22, 2008 (Policy 
Memorandum).
    As noted above, during June and July 2008, petitioners and Winner 
submitted comments on the appropriate surrogate country and surrogate 
values. Petitioners argue that India is the most appropriate surrogate 
country because (1) it is a market economy (ME) country at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC in terms of gross national 
income (GNI), (2) it is a significant producer of subject merchandise 
for which public financial statements are available, (3) it maintains 
public data for many of the factors of production, and (4) the 
Department has traditionally selected India as a surrogate country for 
the PRC. Petitioners add that Thai surrogate values are less 
appropriate than Indian values because the financial statements 
provided by Winner are not from producers of subject merchandise.
    Winner argues that Thailand, rather than India, should be selected 
as the surrogate country. Specifically, Winner contends that Thailand 
is the

[[Page 51790]]

appropriate surrogate country in this case because: (1) it is an ME 
country that is economically comparable to the PRC, (2) it is a 
significant producer of subject merchandise (the ITC identified 
Thailand (not India) as one of four substantial suppliers of CWASPP to 
the United States), and (3) Thai CWASPP is more comparable to the PRC's 
than India's CWASPP because, based on ITC data, U.S. importers did not 
purchase Indian CWASPP. Moreover, Winner maintains that India and 
Thailand should not be considered to be equally comparable to the PRC 
because Thailand's per capita GNI is closer to the PRC's than India's 
and the difference between Thailand's GNI and India's GNI is vast. In 
addition, Winner argues that the Department should not have listed 
India as a potential surrogate country because, in doing so, the 
Department skipped over nineteen other countries each with a GNI closer 
to that of the PRC. Winner also notes that predictability is not a 
basis for selecting India as the surrogate country; rather it is the 
Department's obligation to use the best' available information to 
calculate dumping margins as accurately as possible. Lastly, Winner 
claims India should not be selected as a surrogate country because 
studies indicate its import statistics are flawed due to 
misclassifications and thus they should not be used to calculate 
surrogate values.
    After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department has 
selected India as the surrogate country for this investigation. 
Although Winner has argued that Thailand's level of economic 
development is closer to that of the PRC than India's, the statute does 
not require the Department to use a surrogate country at a level of 
economic development closest to the NME country; it merely requires 
that the surrogate country used be economically comparable to the NME 
country. See section 773 (c)(2) of the Act. Thus, the Department does 
not rank-order countries' comparability according to how close their 
per capita GNI is to that of the NME country in question. Rather, in 
NME proceedings, the Department creates a list of possible surrogate 
countries that it considers equivalent in terms of economic 
comparability. In addition, the potential surrogate countries 
identified reflect countries that, in the Department's experience, are 
most likely to offer data necessary to conduct the proceeding. Given 
the foregoing, and the spectrum of economic development across the 
world, (e.g., the World Development Report used by the Department to 
select potential surrogate countries list 133 countries with GNIs 
ranging from $100 to $66,530), we continue to find it appropriate to 
consider India to be at a level of economic development comparable to 
the PRC. See Winner's June 27, 2008, submission to the Department at 
Exhibit 2.
    With respect to the criterion that the surrogate country be a 
significant producer of merchandise that is comparable to subject 
merchandise, record evidence indicates that both India and Thailand are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. See memorandum from 
Melissa Blackledge, to the File regarding ``Potential Surrogate 
Countries: Significant Production of Comparable Merchandise'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
    Since both India and Thailand satisfy the statutory criteria for 
selecting a surrogate country, we examined whether one country is a 
more appropriate surrogate than the other based on data availability 
and quality. After examining the surrogate value information provided 
by the petitioners and Winner, we find the Indian surrogate financial 
data better reflect the overall experience of producers of subject 
merchandise in a surrogate country. The Indian financial statements 
from Jindal SAW Ltd. and Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd. are from 
companies that produce subject and like merchandise, and while one is 
contemporaneous with the POI, the other includes the year ending March 
31, 2007, just three months prior to the beginning of the POI. The only 
usable Thai financial statement, for Great Central (International) Co., 
Ltd., is not contemporaneous with the POI and states that it 
``manufactures and distributes stainless steel,'' yet it lacks 
information regarding the type of stainless steel produced, the type 
and extent of manufacturing, the raw materials produced and/or 
consumed, and its associations with other companies or group of 
companies. Generally, where available, we prefer to use more than one 
financial statement in order to obtain a broader industry 
representation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 
(December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While petitioners and Winner have submitted financial statements in 
addition to those identified above, we have concluded that these 
financial statements are not useable. Specifically, the financial 
statements the Department finds not useable are: (1) two Thai financial 
statements, one from Thai-German Products Public Co., Ltd. and one from 
Lokahit Metal Public Co., Ltd., which indicate receipt of subsidies, 
and (2) one Indian financial statement, from Suraj Stainless Ltd., 
which also indicates receipt of subsidies.
    In Crawfish from the PRC, the Department discussed its practice 
with respect to financial statements that contain evidence of 
subsidization:
    {T{time} he statute directs Commerce to base the valuation of the 
factors of production on ``the best available information regarding the 
values of such factors in a market economy country or countries 
considered to be appropriate . . . .'' Section 773(c)(1) of the Act. 
Moreover, in valuing such factors, Congress further directed Commerce 
to ``avoid using any prices which it has reason to believe or suspect 
may be dumped or subsidized prices.'' Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 
Act of 1988, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100 nth Cong., 2 nd Sess., at 590-91 
(1988). The Department calculates the financial ratios based on 
financial statements of companies producing comparable merchandise from 
the surrogate country, some of which may contain evidence of 
subsidization. However, where the Department has a reason to believe or 
suspect that the company may have received subsidies, the Department 
may consider that the financial ratios derived from that company's 
financial statements are less representative of the financial 
experience of that company or the relevant industry than the ratios 
derived from financial statements that do not contain evidence of 
subsidization. Consequently, {those statements that appear to reflect 
subsidies{time}  do not constitute the best available information to 
value the surrogate financial ratios.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Crawfish from the PRC, and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the record information regarding these three companies' receipt 
of subsidies, and the fact that we have other acceptable financial 
statements to use as surrogates,\3\ we have not considered the 
financial data from these three companies in our surrogate ratio 
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As noted above, those financial statements include 
statements from Jindal SAW Ltd. Although Winner noted that Jindal 
SAW Ltd.'s financial statement listed ``export benefits/government 
grants receivable,'' the Department has insufficient information to 
determine whether these items relate to programs that have been 
countervailed.

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

[[Page 51791]]

    Petitioners and Winner also submitted import statistics from which 
they calculated surrogate values. Although Winner has contested the 
quality of the Indian import data based on certain studies, the studies 
submitted by Winner do not reference the inputs used to produce CWASPP. 
In Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the PRC, the Department examined these 
studies and found they were not sufficiently specific to the inputs 
used in that case to support finding the Indian import data to be 
inaccurate.\4\ Likewise, the evidence that has been placed on the 
record of this proceeding by Winner does not cause the Department to 
question the quality of the Indian import statistics used here. 
Therefore, because India better represents the experience of producers 
of subject merchandise and providesbetter financial data; we have 
selected India as the surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 46957 (August 22, 2007) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated August 8, 2007, 
at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice, 73 
FR at 10221. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a 
separate-rate status application. See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: 
Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 
(April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.\5\ However, the standard for eligibility for a separate 
rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de 
jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities) has 
not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ``while 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 
applied 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 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 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. 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both 
de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. The 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under 
a test arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 
20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) 
(``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a 
company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a 
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is 
independent from government control.

A. Separate Rate Applicants \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All separate rate applicants receiving a separate rate are 
hereby referred to collectively as the ``SR Recipients.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned

    Winner, the mandatory respondent, reported that it is wholly owned 
by individuals or companies located in a market economy in its 
separate-rate application (``Foreign-owned SR Applicant''). Therefore, 
because it is wholly foreign-owned, and we have no evidence indicating 
that it is under the control of the PRC, further separate rates 
analysis is not necessary to determine whether this company is 
independent from government control. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the 
People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where 
the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a 
separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate 
rate to Winner Machinery Enterprise Company Limited.

2. Wholly Chinese-Owned

One separate rate applicant, Jiuli, stated that it is a wholly Chinese-
owned company. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether this 
respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by Jiuli supports a preliminary finding of de 
jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of the company; and (3) and there are 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of the 
company. See Jiuli's Separate Rate Application, (Jiuli's SRA) dated 
April 28, 2008.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.

[[Page 51792]]

    We determine that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary 
finding of de facto absence of governmental control with respect to 
Jiuli based on record statements and supporting documentation showing 
that the company: 1) sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) has the 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) 
has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. 
See, e.g., Jiuli's SRA.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Winner 
and Jiuli demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to the exporters' exports of the merchandise under 
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have preliminary granted Winner and 
Jiuli separate rate status. We calculated a company-specific dumping 
margin for Winner and also assigned this margin to Jiuli.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    Although PRC exporters of subject merchandise to the United States 
were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information to the Department, 
not all exporters responded to the Department's request for Q&V 
information.\7\ Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of 
subject merchandise from the PRC, we have concluded that the companies 
that responded to the Q&V questionnaire do not account for all U.S. 
imports of subject merchandise from the PRC made during the POI. We 
have treated the non-responsive PRC producers/exporters as part of the 
PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Department received only two timely responses to the 
requests for Q&V information that it sent to 11 potential exporters 
identified in the petition. The record indicates the questionnaires 
were received by the exporters. See Respondent Selection Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall, 
subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination if an interested party: (A) 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; 
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified.
    As noted above, the PRC-wide entity withheld information requested 
by the Department. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide dumping margin on 
facts available. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 
(January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian 
Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see also Statement of 
Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act , 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I at 843 (1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 at 870. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond 
to the Department's request for information, the Department has 
concluded that the PRC-wide entity has failed to cooperate to the best 
of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in 
selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is 
appropriate.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as 
adverse facts available (AFA): (1) information derived from the 
petition; (2) the final determination from the LTFV investigation; (3) 
a previous administrative review; or (4) any other information placed 
on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects one 
that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the 
facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department 
with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909 (February 23, 
1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher 
of: (a) the highest margin alleged in the petition or (b) the highest 
calculated rate for any respondent in the investigation. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Facts Available. Here, we assigned the PRC-wide entity 
the dumping margin calculated for Winner, which exceeds the highest 
margin alleged in the petition and is the highest rate calculated in 
this investigation. Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, we do not 
need to corroborate this rate because it is based on information 
obtained during the course of this investigation rather than secondary 
information. See SAA at 870. The dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity 
applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except 
for entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Winner and 
produced and exported by Jiuli.

Fair Value Comparisons

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

U.S. Price

EP

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price of sales on EP because the first sale to unaffiliated purchasers 
was made prior to importation and the use of constructed export price 
methodology was not otherwise warranted.
    In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by 
deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the starting 
price (gross unit price) charged to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States: foreign movement expenses, marine insurance, 
international freight, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses.
    We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where a PRC 
company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi (RMB). Where 
market economy service providers, who were paid in a market economy 
currency, provided movement services for over 33 percent of subject 
merchandise shipments, by volume, we based the movement expenses on the 
actual price charged by the service provider. See Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market

[[Page 51793]]

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and 
Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006); see also 
Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997) 
(Final Rule). For details regarding our EP calculation, see Circular 
Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China - Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for Winner Machinery Enterprise 
Co., Ltd.

NV

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we constructed NV 
from the factors of production employed by Winner to manufacture 
subject merchandise during the POI. Specifically, we calculated NV by 
adding together the value of the factors of production, general 
expenses, profit, and packing costs. We valued the factors of 
production using prices and financial statements from the surrogate 
country, India. If market economy suppliers, who were paid in a market 
economy currency, supplied over 33 percent of the total volume of a 
material input purchased from all sources during the POI, we based the 
input value on the actual price charged by the supplier. If market 
economy suppliers, who were paid in a market economy currency, supplied 
less than 33 percent of the total volume of a material input purchased 
from all sources during the POI, we calculated the value by weight-
averaging surrogate values with the actual price charged by the 
suppliers. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006); see also Final Rule. In 
selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent practicable, the 
Department's practice of choosing values which are non-export average 
values, contemporaneous with, or closest in time to, the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the 
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate 
values.
    We valued material inputs and packing by multiplying the amount of 
the factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average 
unit value of the factor. In addition, we added freight costs to the 
surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We calculated 
freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of 
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that 
produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, as 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F. 3d 1401, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we could only obtain surrogate 
values that were not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated (or 
deflated) the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index 
(WPI) as published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund.
    Further, in calculating surrogate values from Indian imports, we 
disregarded imports from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because 
in other proceedings the Department found that these countries maintain 
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Therefore, 
it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these 
countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Amended Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 
2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 
69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).\8\ Thus, we have not used prices from 
these countries in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate 
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In addition, we note that legislative history explains that 
the Department is not required to conduct a formal investigation to 
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 
590 (1988). As such, it is the Department's practice to base its 
decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes 
its determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued raw materials and packing materials using Indian import 
statistics, except as noted below. Winner reported both ME and NME 
purchases of grades 304 and 316 stainless steel coil (coil) used to 
produce the merchandise under investigation. Petitioners argue that 
Winner purchased coil at dumped and subsidized prices. Specifically, 
they argue that the Department should not use Winner's ME purchase 
price to value coil because: (1) the Department has a dumping order on 
U.S. imports of coil from Taiwan, and Winner's coil supplier has 
received an adverse facts available (AFA) dumping margin in the 
proceeding; (2) the European Union (EU) initiated a dumping 
investigation on stainless steel cold rolled flat products from Taiwan 
which covers the period during which the respondent purchased coil from 
its supplier; ( 3) the European Community (EC) imposed countervailing 
duties (CVD) on Taiwanese hot-rolled flat steel coils, (specifically, 
petitioners argue that the CVD programs existed during the instant POI, 
and, although Winner's coil supplier was not examined in the EC's CVD 
investigation, it is reasonable to believe that this supplier could 
have benefitted from these programs since the programs are broadly 
available, non-industry specific, and were likely used by steel 
producers); (4) Winner's ME purchase prices are well below the prices 
of 304 and 316 stainless steel coil from the Steel Authority of India 
Limited (SAIL), prices reported by the publication American Metal 
Market (AMM), and prices quoted on metalprices.com; and (5) Winner's ME 
purchase prices are below the estimated cost of producing grades 304 
and 316 stainless steel, even where one conservatively treats alloys as 
the only material input used to produce the stainless steel 
(petitioners constructed the cost of grades 304 and 316 stainless steel 
using market prices for alloys and Indian surrogate overhead and profit 
ratios).
    Winner counters that its ME purchases of grades 304 and 316 coil 
(which constitute over 33[percnt] of its total purchases of coil) have 
not been dumped or subsidized and should be used to value the coils 
that it consumed. Specifically, Winner argues that: (1) in the latest 
review in the U.S. antidumping proceeding cited by petitioners, another 
company, not its coil supplier, received the AFA dumping margin, while 
the review of Winner's supplier covering the instant POI was rescinded; 
(2) the EU has made no determination in its dumping investigation; (3) 
evidence of third-country (EC and US) dumping is irrelevant; (4) there 
is no evidence that Winner's coil supplier received subsidies or that 
there are subsidies available for coil, (5) the EC CVD order is 
outdated (2000), expired in 2005, does not cover stainless coil (only 
hot-rolled coil), and does not name Winner's coil supplier, and (6) 
petitioners' price and cost comparisons are unreliable because: (a) 
Indian SAIL

[[Page 51794]]

price quotes do not indicate the seller or buyer, are not certified by 
anyone, and do not include discounts, rebates, etc., (b) AMM prices are 
U.S.-specific representing industry averages and do not reasonably 
reflect Taiwanese stainless prices, and (c) petitioners' calculation of 
the cost used in their comparison is inaccurate. Lastly, Winner claims 
that Asia MEPS (International) Ltd. (MEPS) data corroborates Winner's 
coil supplier's coil prices (petitioners identified MEPS as a leading 
source of pricing data in the stainless steel industry.)
    Petitioners then argue that import statistics, regardless of the 
selected surrogate country, should not be used to value coil because 
they do not differentiate between basic coil and grades 304 and 316 
coil. Petitioners claim that differentiating between other grades of 
coil and grades 304 and 316 coil is critical because grades 304 and 316 
coil contain high concentrations of expensive alloys, such as nickel 
and molybdenum, and cost several times more than basic coil. 
Specifically, petitioners contend that the average unit values from 
Indian import data for the HTS classification for coil, for example, do 
not approach the cost of the nickel and molybdenum contained in grades 
304 and 316 coils, and therefore, the Department should use SAIL prices 
as the surrogate value for 304 and 316 coil.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Although not mentioned by petitioners, we noted that SAIL is 
specifically named in the EC CVD order on hot-rolled steel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds no evidence that Winner's ME purchases were 
dumped or subsidized because: (1) neither the U.S. AD order on coil 
from Taiwan nor the EU investigation have relevance to the prices paid 
in the PRC,\10\ (2) the countervailing duty proceeding conducted by the 
EC (a) does not cover merchandise produced by the Taiwanese coil 
supplier, (b) does not cover stainless coil, (c) does not name the 
Taiwanese coil supplier as a respondent, and (d) expired in 2005, and 
(3) there is no evidence on the record that any of the subsidies on hot 
rolled steel found by the EC to be countervailable still exist or, even 
if they exist, that the Taiwanese coil supplier would be eligible to 
receive them. Moreover, although Winner's ME purchase prices for 
stainless coil are lower than the prices and constructed costs 
submitted by petitioners, prices can be affected by numerous 
indeterminate factors. Thus, these price differences do not provide a 
basis to believe or suspect that the product may be dumped or 
subsidized. Therefore, because the quantity of ME purchases of coil 
exceeded 33[percnt] of Winner's total purchases of coil, the Department 
has used the ME purchase price as its surrogate value for all purchases 
of coil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Department has previously noted that it will 
``disregard market economy prices for imported inputs as dumped only 
when the importing country has an antidumping duty order in effect 
for the products in question * * * dumping is specific to 
competitive conditions in particular markets and cannot be assumed 
to apply globally.'' See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts From the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 20373 (April 25, 2003), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) because it includes a wide 
range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial 
water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003, 193 for the 
``inside industrial areas'' usage category, and 193 for the ``outside 
industrial areas'' usage category. Because the rate was not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using the WPI. See 
the Memorandum Regarding ``Investigation of Circular Welded Austenitic 
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate 
Values Selected'' for Winner dated concurrently with this notice 
(Factor Value Memorandum).
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty 
and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July 2006. 
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. Since the rates are not contemporaneous with the 
POI, we inflated the values using the WPI. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    We valued natural gas using a value obtained from the Gas Authority 
of India Ltd.'s website, a supplier of natural gas in India. See http://www.gailonline.com/gailnewsite/index.html. The value relates to the 
period January through June 2002. Therefore, we inflated the value 
using the WPI. In addition, we added transportation charges to the 
value. See Surrogate Value Memorandum and Polyvinyl Alcohol From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    We valued fuel oil/diesel using the prices for petrol from Indian 
Oil Corp. Ltd. from June 2007, after inflating the value using the WPI 
for the POI. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the most recently calculated 
regression-based wage rate, which relies on 2005 data. This wage rate 
can be found on the Department's website on Import Administration's 
home page. See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries (revised May 
2008) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html). The source 
of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the 
International Labour Organization, Geneva, Labour Statistics Database 
Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Since this regression-based wage 
rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or 
types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels 
and types of labor reported by Winner. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the following web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
website contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we 
deflated the rate using the WPI. See Factor Value Memorandum.
    We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the 
brokerage and handling costs that were reported in public submissions 
that were filed in three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we 
averaged the public brokerage and handling expenses reported by Agro 
Dutch Industries Ltd. in the antidumping duty administrative review of 
certain preserved mushrooms from India, Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the LTFV 
investigation of certain lined paper products from India, and Essar 
Steel in the antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled 
carbon steel flat products from India. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 
FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, 
and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in 
Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012

[[Page 51795]]

(August 8, 2006) and Certain hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
71 FR 2018,2021 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006). Since the resulting 
value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using 
the WPI. See Factor Value Memorandum. We valued international freight 
and marine insurance using purchase prices. See analysis memorandum for 
Winner dated concurrently with this notice.
    We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, and profit, using the 2006-2007 audited financial 
statements of Jindal SAW Ltd. and Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd. See 
Factor Value Memorandum. For additional information regarding the 
selection of financial ratios, see the ``Surrogate Country'' section 
above.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information with which to value factors of 
production in the final determination within 40 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

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

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice. This 
change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Policy Bulletin 05.1, states:
    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now 
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool 
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.
See Policy Bulletin 05.1, ``Separate Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries.''

Preliminary Determination

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                  Exporter & Producer                     Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd. Produced by:     22.03[percnt]
 Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co., Ltd................
Winner Machinery Enterprise Co., Ltd. Produced by:       22.03[percnt]
 Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co., Ltd..................
PRC-Wide Rate..........................................  22.03[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of CWASPP from the PRC as 
described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, 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 amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, 
as indicated above.

International Trade Commission Notification

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

Public Comment

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

[[Page 51796]]

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on August 15, 2008, as 
amended on August 22, 2008, Winner requested that in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. At the same 
time, Winner agreed that the Department may extend the application of 
the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 
4-month period to a 6-month period. In accordance with section 733(d) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), we are granting the request and are 
postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after 
the publication of this notice in the Federal Register because: (1) our 
preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters 
account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist. Suspension 
of liquidation will be extended accordingly.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-20508 Filed 9-4-08 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S