[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 216 (Thursday, November 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66012-66020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26503]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-570-935)
Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line 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: November 6, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') preliminarily
determines that certain circular welded carbon quality steel welded
line pipe (``welded line pipe'') 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: Jeff Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2769 or 482-3627, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 3, 2008, the Department received a petition concerning
imports of welded line pipe from the PRC and the Republic of Korea
(``Korea'') filed in proper form by United States Steel Corporation
(``U.S. Steel''), Maverick Tube Corporation (``Maverick''), Tex-Tube
Company (``Tex-Tube''), and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, and AFL-CIO-CLC (``United Steelworkers'')
(collectively, ``Petitioners''). See Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of
Korea, dated April 3, 2008 (in four volumes) (``Petition''). On April
23, 2008, the Department initiated antidumping duty investigations of
welded line pipe from the above-mentioned countries. See Certain
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe From the Republic of
Korea and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188 (April 29, 2008) (``Initiation
Notice'').
Also, on April 23, 2008, the Department issued a quantity and value
(``Q&V'') questionnaire to each of the 65 companies identified by the
Petitioners as potential exporters or producers of welded line pipe
from the PRC. See supplement to the petition at Exhibit II-Supp I,
dated April 14, 2008. The Department received timely responses to its
Q&V questionnaire from the following nine companies: Benxi Northern
Steel Pipes Co., Ltd. (``Benxi''); Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,
Ltd.(``Huludao Pipe''); Pangang Group Behai Pipe Corporation
(``Pangang''); Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp. d/b/a
Shanghai Minmetals Materials & Products Corp. (``Shanghai
[[Page 66013]]
Metals''); Tianjin Xingyuda Import and Export Company (``Tianjin'');
Nanjing HuaDong Steel Pipes Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (``Nanjing'');
Shashi Steel Pipe Works, SINOPEC (``Shashi''); Xuzhou Guanghuan Steel
Tube Co., Ltd. (``Xuzhou''); and Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
(``Jiangsu Yulong''). On May 20, 2008, the Department rejected the Q&V
responses submitted by Nanjing, Shashi, Xuzhou, and Jiangsu Yulong
because they were improperly filed. The Department requested that
Nanjing, Shashi, Xuzhou, and Jiangsu Yulong correct certain filing
deficiencies. See Letters to Nanjing, Shashi, Xuzhou, and Jiangsu
Yulong, dated May 20, 2008. The Department received information
indicating that Nanjing, Shashi, and Xuzhou had received the
Department's May 20, 2008, letter, but Nanjing, Shashi, and Xuzhou did
not refile their submissions. The Department did not have any
information to whether Jiangsu Yulong had received the May 20, 2008,
letter and on July 15, 2008, the Department sent a letter to Jiangsu
Yulong requesting that it explain why it had failed to respond to the
Department's May 20, 2008, letter, in which the Department requested
that the company properly refile its Q&V response. See Letter to Ms.
Tang Wei-jun regarding, Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe
from the People's Republic of China, dated July 15, 2008. On July 28,
2008, Jiangsu Yulong resubmitted its Q&V response and explained that it
had not responded to the Department's May 20, 2008, letter concerning
its improperly filed Q&V response because it had not received the
letter. See Letter to the Department from Jiangsu Yulong, dated July
28, 2008.
On May 13, 2008, the Department received product matching comments
from one of the Petitioners, Maverick, and scope comments from
Wheatland Tube Company (``Wheatland''), a domestic producer. See the
``Scope Comments'' section of this notice for further details. On May
27, 2008, the Department received comments from Maverick on the record
of this investigation rebutting model matching comments submitted in
the Korean investigation of welded line pipe.
On May 16, 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 welded line pipe from the PRC
and Korea. See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe
from China and Korea, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-455 and 731-TA-1149-
1150 (Preliminary), 73 FR 31712 (June 3, 2008).
On May 27, 2008, the Department received comments from Maverick
regarding respondent selection. No other party submitted comments
regarding respondent selection.
The Department received separate rate applications from Huludao
Pipe on June 23, 2008, and from Benxi, Pangang, Shanghai Metals,
Tianjin, and Jiangsu Yulong on June 30, 2008.
On June 3, 2008, and July 9, 2008, the Department selected Huludao
Pipe and Shanghai Metals, respectively, as mandatory respondents. See
Memoranda to File: ``Respondent Selection in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe (welded
line pipe) from the People's Republic of China (PRC),'' from Rebecca
Pandolph through Howard Smith and Abdelali Elouradia, dated June 3,
2008, and ``Amendment to Respondent Selection in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from
the People's Republic of China,'' from Jeffrey Pedersen and Rebecca
Pandolph through Howard Smith and Abdelali Elouradia, dated July 9,
2008.
The Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Huludao Pipe
and Shanghai Metals on June 4, 2008, and July 9, 2008, respectively.
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received
responses from, the mandatory and separate rate respondents from July
2008 through October 2008. The Petitioners submitted comments to the
Department regarding the questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire
responses of the mandatory and separate rate respondents from July 2008
through September 2008.
On July 29, 2008, the Department released to interested parties a
memorandum which listed potential surrogate countries and invited
interested parties to comment on surrogate country and factor value
selection. See Letter to All Interested Parties from Howard Smith,
Program Manager, Office 4, concerning ``Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's
Republic of China,'' dated July 29, 2008.
On August 8, 2008, Maverick and U.S. Steel, two of the petitioning
firms, submitted comments on surrogate country selection in which they
both recommended selecting India as the surrogate country in this
investigation. See Letter from Maverick, regarding Certain Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of
China: Comments on the Proper Surrogate Country, dated August 8, 2008,
and Letter from U.S. Steel, regarding Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country
Selection, dated August 8, 2008.
On August 12, 2008, Maverick and U.S. Steel requested postponement
of the preliminary determination. On August 21, 2008, the Department
extended this preliminary determination by fifty days. See Certain
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the Republic of
Korea and the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary
Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 50941 (August
29, 2008).
On October 3, 2008, Shanghai Metals requested that the Department
extend the final determination in this case. See the ``Postponement of
Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures'' section of
this notice below.
On September 2 and September 9, 2008, the Petitioners and Huludao
Pipe submitted comments on, and calculations for, the surrogate values.
On September 15, 2008, Petitioners and Huludao Pipe submitted rebuttal
comments regarding surrogate values. The submitted surrogate value data
are from India.
On September 30, 2008, the Petitioners and Huludao Pipe submitted
comments to be considered in the Department's preliminary
determination.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2007, through
March 31, 2008. 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., April 2008). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded
carbon quality steel pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines
(welded line pipe), not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside
diameter, regardless of wall thickness, length, surface finish, end
finish or stenciling.
The term ``carbon quality steel'' includes both carbon steel and
carbon steel mixed with small amounts of alloying elements that may
exceed the individual weight limits for nonalloy steels imposed in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').
Specifically, the term
[[Page 66014]]
``carbon quality'' includes products in which (1) iron predominates by
weight over each of the other contained elements, (2) the carbon
content is 2 percent or less by weight and (3) none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated:
(i) 2.00 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) 0.012 percent of boron,
(xi) 0.50 percent of molybdenum,
(xii) 0.15 percent of niobium,
(xiii) 0.41 percent of titanium,
(xiv) 0.15 percent of vanadium, or
(xv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Welded line pipe is normally produced to specifications published
by the American Petroleum Institute (``API'') (or comparable foreign
specifications) including API A-25, 5LA, 5LB, and X grades from 42 and
above, and/or any other proprietary grades or non-graded material.
Nevertheless, all pipe meeting the physical description set forth above
that is of a kind used in oil and gas pipelines, including all
multiple-stenciled pipe with an API welded line pipe stencil is covered
by the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from this scope are pipes of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines that are multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural
specification and have 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 welded line pipe products that are the subject of these
investigations are currently classifiable in the HTSUS under
subheadings 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and
7306.19.51.50. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
Scope Comments
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that the scope of
the welded line pipe investigations may cover certain merchandise
potentially subject to the on-going antidumping duty and countervailing
duty investigations of circular welded pipe (``CWP'') from the PRC. The
Department went on to note in the Initiation Notice that once certain
scope issues in the CWP investigations have been resolved, it intended
to reexamine the welded line pipe scope language to ensure that there
was no overlap between the scope of the CWP and welded line pipe
investigations. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 23188, 23189. Moreover, in
accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, the
Department stated in the Initiation Notice that it would set aside a
period of time 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 scope comments from Wheatland, a domestic producer,
requesting that the Department modify the welded line pipe scope to
take into account the scope definition ultimately set out in the CWP
investigations. See Letter from Wheatland, regarding Comments on Scope
of Investigations, dated May 13, 2008.
Given that the scope issue in the CWP investigation has been
resolved, we have modified the scope of the welded line pipe
investigations to eliminate the overlap that existed between the CWP
and welded line pipe investigations. Specifically, we added the
following language to the scope description:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, from Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, Office 4 Operations, regarding ``Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon Quality
Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Scope
Modification,'' dated August 29, 2008 (``Scope Modification
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from this scope are pipes of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines that are multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or structural
specification and have one or more of the following characteristics:\2\
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.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This sentence differs from the language contained in the
Scope Modification Memorandum''. The language in the Scope
Modification Memorandum is as follows: ``Excluded from this scope
are pipes that are multiple-stenciled to a standard and/or
structural specification and to any other specification, such as the
API-5L specification, when it also has one or more of the following
characteristics.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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). The Department has not revoked the PRC's
status as an NME country. Therefore, in this preliminary determination,
we continued to treat the PRC as an NME country and apply our current
NME methodology.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
In an investigation involving imports from NME countries, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to 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 Colombia, India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, 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 Carbon Quality
Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Request for a List
of Surrogate Countries,'' dated May 27, 2008 (``Policy Memorandum'').
From among these economically comparable countries, the Department has
preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country for this
investigation because it determined that: (1) India is a significant
producer of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise and (2)
reliable Indian data for valuing the factors of production are
[[Page 66015]]
readily available. See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Office
Director, through Howard Smith, Program Manager, from Jeffrey Pedersen
and Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade Compliance Specialists,
concerning ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Selection
of a Surrogate Country,'' dated September 22, 2008.
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
recent application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice, 73
FR 23188, 23193. 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), available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov (Policy Bulletin
05.1).\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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
Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese-
Owned Companies
All of the separate rate applicants in this investigation,
including the mandatory respondents Huludao Pipe and Shanghai Metals,
stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign
companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies (collectively, ``PRC SR
Applicants''). Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these
respondents 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 at Comment 1.
The evidence provided by Benxi, Huludao Pipe, Pangang, Shanghai
Metals, Tianjin, and Jiangsu Yulong supports a preliminary finding of
de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3)
and there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control
of companies. See e.g. Huludao's June 23, 2008 Separate Rate
Application (``Huludao SRA'') and Benxi's June 23, 2008 Separate Rate
Application (``Benxi SRA'').
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.
The Petitioners argue that Shanghai Metals, Benxi, and Pangang are
directly or indirectly controlled by the PRC government and should,
therefore, not be granted separate rates. For example, the Petitioners
maintain that Shanghai Metals was a state-owned enterprise during the
POI and that two of its employees were former employees of the PRC
government. See Letter from U.S. Steel regarding ``Certain Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From the People's Republic of China,''
dated August 15, 2008. Accordingly, the Petitioners argue that these
three entities are ineligible for a separate rate. See Letters from
Maverick and U.S. Steel, dated July 15, 2008, regarding Shanghai
Metal's, Benxi's, and Pangang's separate rate applications. However,
the Department has previously granted separate rate status to both
wholly state-owned producers and producers whose stock was partially
owned by a government state assets management company when evidence of
actual government control was not present. See Lightweight Thermal
Paper From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 57329 (October 2, 2008) and the
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 7. Absent
evidence of de facto control over export
[[Page 66016]]
activities, government ownership alone does not warrant denying a
company a separate rate.\4\ The Petitioners have not provided any
evidence of government participation in the export decisions of the
directors and or managers of Shanghai Metals, Benxi, or Pangang.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination : Structural
Steel Beams from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 67197
(December 28, 2008) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value : Structural Steel Beams from the
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 35479 (May 20, 2002)), stating
``The petitioners in this case argue that, because Maanshan is 63
percent owned by a holding company which is, in turn, wholly owned
by the Anhui provincial government, and because certain managers of
the holding company also serve on the board of directors of
Maanshan, the respondent is ineligible for a separate rate due to
potential government control. However, the petitioners have not
submitted any specific evidence indicating that the conditions for
de facto control exist. As stated in the Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22587, ownership of the company by a state-owned enterprise does not
require the application of a single rate. Therefore, based on the
information provided, we preliminarily determine that there is an
absence of de facto governmental control of Maanshan's export
functions. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that the
respondent has met the criteria for the application of a separate
rate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We preliminarily determine that the evidence placed on the record
of this investigation by all of the PRC SR Applicants demonstrates an
absence of de facto government control of exports of the merchandise
under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Shanghai Metals, Benxi, and Pangang all
certified that their export prices are not set by, subject to the
approval of, or in any way controlled by a government entity at any
level and that they have independent authority to negotiate and sign
export contracts, providing price negotiation documents for their first
U.S. sale. See, e.g., Shanghai Metals' June 30, 2008, Separate Rate
Application (``Shanghai Metals SRA''), Benxi SRA, dated June 30, 2008,
and Pangang's July 1, 2008, Separate Rate Application (``Pangang
SRA''). Shanghai Metals also reported that according to its articles of
association, the general assembly of employee representatives has the
right to select the general manager and to decide how profits will be
distributed. See Shanghai Metals SRA, dated June 30, 2008, at 14-16.
Benxi reported that according to its articles of association, its board
of directors has the right to appoint the general manager and to decide
how profits will be distributed. See Benxi SRA, dated June 30, 2008, at
13-15. Pangang submitted a board resolution and an internal notice of a
new appointment which demonstrates its independent selection of
management. See Pangang SRA, dated July 1, 2008, at Exhibit 10.
Moreover, Shanghai Metals reported that neither of the two employees
named by the Petitioners worked for the PRC government and it provided
the employment history for the two employees. See Letter from Shanghai
Metals regarding ``Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from China-
Response to Petitioners' Allegations,'' dated August 25, 2008.
Additionally, the other PRC SR applicants all submitted evidence that
supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental
control. See, e.g., Huludao Pipe SRA, dated June 23, 2008, Jiangsu
Yulong's June 30, 2008, Separate Rate Application and Tianjin's June
30, 2008 Separate Rate Application. Thus, we preliminarily determine
that there is an absence of both de jure and de facto government
control with respect to each of the PRC SR Applicants.
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily granted separate rate
status to the following companies: Benxi, Huludao Pipe, Pangang,
Shanghai Metals, Tianjin, and Jiangsu Yulong. The Department has
calculated company-specific dumping margins for the two mandatory
respondents, Huludao Pipe and Shanghai Metals, and assigned the other
companies that have been granted a separate rate a dumping margin equal
to a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the two
mandatory respondents.
B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
The Department has determined that all parties applying for a
separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated an
absence of government control both in law and in fact (see discussion
above), and is, therefore, granting separate rate status to all
applicants.
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.\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Department received only 9 timely responses to the
requests for Q&V information that it sent to 65 potential exporters
identified in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 66017]]
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
Shanghai Metals, 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 also SAA
at 870. The PRC-wide dumping margin applies to all entries of the
merchandise under investigation except for entries of subject
merchandise from Benxi, Huludao Pipe, Pangang, Shanghai Metals,
Tianjin, and Jiangsu Yulong.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Huludao Pipe or Shanghai Metals sold welded
line pipe to the United States at LTFV, we compared the weighted-
average export price (``EP'') of the welded line pipe to the NV of
welded line pipe, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for both Huludao Pipe
and Shanghai Metals, we based the U.S. price of sales on EP because the
first sale to unaffiliated purchasers was made prior to importation and
the use of constructed export price was not otherwise warranted. In
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP for Huludao
Pipe by deducting the following expenses from the starting price (gross
unit price) charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United
States: foreign movement expenses, international freight, foreign
warehousing, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses. For Shanghai
Metals, we calculated EP by deducting foreign movement expenses and
foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price charged
to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States.
We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where the
service was purchased from a PRC company. For details regarding our EP
calculation, see Analysis Memoranda for Huludao Pipe and Shanghai
Metals, dated October 30, 2008.
Normal Value
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we constructed NV
from the factors of production employed by the respondents to
manufacture subject merchandise during the POI. Specifically, we
calculated NV by adding together the value of the factors of
production, general expenses, profit, and packing costs. We valued the
factors of production using prices and financial statements from the
surrogate country, India. In selecting surrogate values, we followed,
to the extent practicable, the Department's practice of choosing values
which are non-export average values, contemporaneous with, or closest
in time to, the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g.,
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672,
42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We
also considered the quality of the source of surrogate information in
selecting surrogate values.
We valued material inputs and packing by multiplying the amount of
the factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average
unit value of the factor. We derived the average unit value of the
factor from Indian import statistics. In addition, we added freight
costs to the surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We
calculated freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory that produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise,
as appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-08 (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, e.g., 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) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.\6\ Thus, we
have not used prices from these countries in calculating the Indian
import-based surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In addition, we note that legislative history explains that
the Department is not required to conduct a formal investigation to
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at
590 (1988). As such, it is the Department's practice to base its
decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes
its determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued raw materials, scrap, and packing materials using Indian
import statistics. See the memoranda to the File regarding
``Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from
the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values Memorandum'' for
Huludao Pipe and Shanghai Metals, dated concurrently with this notice
(``Surrogate Values Memorandum''). Although the Petitioners requested
that the Department value the steel input using data from the India
Joint Plant Committee (``JPC'')\7\ the Department has not used these
data. The footnotes to the JPC price sheets that were provided by the
petitioners state that ``{a{time} ll prices are inclusive of Excise
Duty & Sales/Vat Tax.''\8\ As noted above, the Department prefers to
value factors of production using tax-exclusive prices. While
Petitioners have provided tax rates used by the Department in other
antidumping cases to adjust JPC prices for wire rod,
[[Page 66018]]
they have not provided information demonstrating that these rates apply
to the steel products for which they submitted JPC prices. Moreover,
the JPC data are not as detailed as the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'')
data. The WTA data include steel prices for several width ranges that
cover all of the widths of steel used by both respondents.\9\ On the
other hand, there is no information in the JPC data regarding steel
width. Thus, it is not clear whether the JPC prices cover all of the
widths of steel used by the respondents. Also, the WTA data include
steel prices for various thickness ranges that cover all of the steel
thicknesses used by the respondents. JPC data, however, include prices
for only a limited number of thicknesses of steel which do not include
all of thicknesses of steel used by the respondents.\10\ Furthermore,
the WTA data include separate prices for different types and forms of
steel (e.g., stainless, clad, pickled, in coils, not in coils ),
whereas it is not clear whether the hot-rolled steel coil and steel
plate categories listed in JPC data exclude the types and forms of
steel not used by the respondents. The additional details in the WTA
data allow the Department to select surrogate values more specific to
the steel input used by the respondents. Therefore, we valued the steel
input using WTA data. For further detail, see Surrogate Values
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The JPC is a joint industry/government board that monitors
Indian steel prices.
\8\ See the submission from U.S. Steel and Maverick regarding
surrogate values, dated September 2, 2008, at Exhibit 1.
\9\ See Shanghai Metal's September 8, 2008, response at 12 and
33 and Huludao Pipe's August 27, 2008, response at 14 for the range
of widths of the steel purchased. The WTA provides prices for steel
of a width of 600mm or more and under 600 mm.
\10\ See Shanghai Metal's October 27, 2008, response at 6 and
Huludao Pipe's October 27, 2008, response at 5 for a list of the
thicknesses of the steel used by the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Attachment IV.
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. We averaged the 386 industrial water
rates and because this averaged rate was not contemporaneous with the
POI, we inflated the averaged rate using the WPI. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect,
and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based
wage rate, which relies on 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 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 Huludao and
Shanghai Metals. See Surrogate Values 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 Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Attachment VI.
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: (1)
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the antidumping duty administrative
review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, (2) Kejirwal Paper
Ltd. in the less than fair value investigation of certain lined paper
products from India, and (3) 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 (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). We inflated the brokerage and
handling rate using the appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum.
We valued warehousing using rates obtained from the Board of
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust's website (http://www.jnport.gov.in/CMSPage.aspx?PageID=27), which is a source used in the antidumping duty
investigation of pneumatic off-the-road tires from the PRC. See Certain
New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 51624 (Sept. 4, 2008) and
accompanying issues and decision memorandum at Comment 26. See also
Surrogate Values Memorandum.
We valued international freight using rate quotes from Maersk
Sealand (``Maersk''), a market-economy shipper. See Surrogate Values
Memorandum.
We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, using the financial statements of
Jindal Saw Ltd. (``Jindal SAW'') and Bihar Tubes Limited (``Bihar'').
See Surrogate Values Memorandum. Huludao Pipe submitted the 2006-2007
financial statements of Zenith Birla (India) Limited (``Zenith'') and
Bihar while the Petitioners submitted the 2006-2007 financial
statements of Jindal SAW and the 2007-2008 financial statements TATA
Steel Limited (``TATA'').
The Department did not rely upon the financial statements for
Zenith because the 2006-2007 statements identify receipt of subsidies
under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book scheme, which has been found by
the Department to provide a countervailable subsidy. See, e.g., Certain
Iron-Metal Castings From India: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 61592
(November 12, 1999) (unchanged in final results).
In Crawfish from the PRC, the Department discussed its practice
with
[[Page 66019]]
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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, In Part,
of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews, 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 2007) and the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Department did not rely upon the financial statements
of TATA because TATA uses a production process different from those
employed by the respondents. It is the Department's practice not to use
financial statements of a company using a production process different
from that employed by a respondent, when other financial statements are
available for companies employing a production process similar to that
employed by a respondent. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70
FR 34082 (June 13, 2005) at Comment 5.
Given the record information regarding Zenith's receipt of
subsidies, and TATA's product process, as well as the fact that we have
other acceptable financial statements to use as surrogates,\12\ we have
not considered the financial data from these two companies in our
financial ratio calculations. Moreover, given both the fact that we
have not found either Bihar's or Jindal SAW's financial statements to
be clearly preferable in this case, and the Department's preference to
use multiple financial statements when they are not distortive or
otherwise unreliable, we have determined that these financial
statements represent the best information on the record with which to
value financial ratios.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Although 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.
\13\ See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 2007) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1c and Final
Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping duty investigation, interested parties
may submit publicly available information with which to value factors
of production 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:
{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,'' available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter & Producer Weighted-Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd./..
Huludao City Steel Pipe Industrial Co., 67.83%
Ltd......................................
Produced by: Huludao Steel Pipe
Industrial Co., Ltd./ Huludao
City Steel Pipe Industrial Co.,
Ltd..............................
Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export 81.52%
Corp. d/b/a Shanghai Minmetals Materials
& Products Corp..........................
Produced by: Huludao Steel Pipe
Industrial Co. Ltd.; Benxi
Northern Pipes Co. Ltd...........
Benxi Northern Pipes Co., Ltd............. 74.68%
Produced by: Benxi Northern Pipes
Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Lianzhong
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd..............
Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe 74.68%
Corporation..............................
[[Page 66020]]
Produced by: Pangang Group Beihai
Steel Pipe Corporation...........
Jiangsu Yulong Steel Pipe Co., Ltd........ 74.68%
Produced by: Jiangsu Yulong Steel
Pipe Co., Ltd....................
Tianjin Xingyuda Import and Export Co., 74.68%
Ltd......................................
Produced by: Tianjin Lifengyuanda
Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd........
PRC-Wide Rate............................. 81.52%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 U.S.
Customs and Border protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all
entries of welded line pipe 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 follows: (1) the rate for the
exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the
rate we have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all
PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all
non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their
own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV.
Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final
determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports of welded line pipe, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final
determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days
after the date the final verification report is issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of
authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited
to five pages total, including footnotes.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230,
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before
the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address,
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in
that party's rebuttal brief.
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on October 3, 2008,
Shanghai Metals 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, Shanghai
Metals 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: October 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-26503 Filed 11-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S