[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4936-4938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1829]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(C-570-931)


Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has made a final 
determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to 
producers and exporters of circular welded austenitic stainless 
pressure pipe (CWASPP) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). For 
information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak, IA Operations, Office 
3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-2209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioner

    The petitioners in this investigation are Bristol Metals LLP, 
Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia U.S.A., Inc., Outokumpu Stainless 
Pipe, Inc., and the United Steelworkers (petitioners).

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of 
investigation (POI), is January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007.

Case History

    On July 10, 2008, we published in the Federal Register the 
preliminary determination that countervailable subsidies are being 
provided to producers and exporters of CWASPP from the PRC, as provided 
under section 703 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See 
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 73 FR 39657 (July 10, 2008) 
(Preliminary Determination). On July 15, 2008, the Winner Companies 
filed timely allegations of significant ministerial errors contained in 
the Department's Preliminary Determination. After reviewing the 
allegations, we determined that the Preliminary Determination included 
significant ministerial errors as described under 19 CFR 351.224(g). 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we made changes to the 
Preliminary Determination. On August 7, 2008, we published in the 
Federal Register the amended preliminary determination. See Circular 
Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Amended Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination 
73 FR 45954 (August 7, 2008) (Amended Preliminary Determination).
    On August 8, 2008, the GOC requested a hearing. On August 11, 2008, 
petitioners requested a hearing.
    On December 16, 2008, we received case briefs regarding the 
Preliminary Determination from the Government of the People's Republic 
of China (GOC), petitioners, and Winner Stainless Tube Co., Ltd. 
(Winner), Winner Steel Products (Guangzhou)(WSP), and Winner Machinery 
Enterprise Company Limited (Winner HK) (collectively the Winner 
Companies). On December 17, 2008, the GOC filed a letter correcting 
inadvertent errors its case brief. On December, 22, 2008, the GOC, 
petitioners, and the Winner Companies submitted rebuttal briefs.

[[Page 4937]]

    On January 7, 2009, the Department issued a post-preliminary 
determination decision memorandum regarding the new subsidy allegations 
that were filed by petitioners on May 30, 2008. On January 12, 2009, we 
received case briefs regarding this post-preliminary determination 
decision memorandum from GOC, petitioners, and the Winner Companies. On 
14, 2009, the GOC, petitioners, and the Winner Companies submitted 
rebuttal briefs on this decision memorandum.
    The GOC and petitioners withdrew their requests for a hearing on 
January 8, 2009.

Scope of 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. 
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 only; the 
written description of the scope is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    Interested parties submitted comments on the scope of 
investigation. Those comments are fully addressed in the preliminary 
determination of the companion AD investigation. See 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, 73 FR 51788, 51789 (September 5, 
2008).

Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the 
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act 
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the International Trade 
Commission (ITC) must determine whether imports of the subject 
merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury 
to a U.S. industry. On March 25, 2008, the ITC published its 
preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of subject 
merchandise. See Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from China, USITC 
Pub. 3986, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-454 and 731-TA-1144 (Preliminary) (March 
2008); and Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from China, 73 FR 16911 
(Preliminary)(March 31, 2008).

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the accompanying January 21, 2008, 
memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping Duty/Countervailing Duty Operations, which is 
titled Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Determination (Decision 
Memorandum) and is on file in Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of 
the main Commerce building. Attached to this notice as an Appendix is a 
list of the issues that parties raised and to which we have responded 
in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this investigation and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Application of Facts Available, Including the Application of Adverse 
Inferences

    For purposes of this final determination, we have relied on facts 
available and have used adverse inferences to determine the 
countervailable subsidy rates for Froch, which is one of the two 
mandatory respondents, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of 
the Act. A full discussion of our decision to apply adverse facts 
available (AFA) is presented in the Decision Memorandum in the section 
``Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inferences'' and in 
``Analysis of Comments'' at Comment 11.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 
calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation, 
the Winner Companies and Froch Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Froch). With 
respect to the all-others rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act 
provides that the all others rate is to be the weighted average of the 
rates established for respondents individually investigated, excluding 
zero or de minimis rates or rates based entirely on facts available. 
Based on the facts and circumstances of this investigation, we find 
that section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) is applicable in determining the all 
others rate. In this case, the Department selected two mandatory 
respondents as representative of all producers/exporters of CWASPP from 
the PRC. One of the two company respondents, Froch, did not respond to 
the questionnaire, and thus we have determined its countervailable 
subsidy rates based entirely on adverse facts available Because the 
Winner Companies' rate is not de minimis and is not based entirely on 
facts available, we determine the Winner Companies' rate to be the all 
others rate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exporter/Manufacturer                  Net Subsidy Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co. Ltd. (Winner)/           1.10 percent ad
 Winner Steel Products (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (WSP)/              valorem
 Winner Machinery Enterprises Company Limited
 (Winner HK) (Collectively the Winner Companies)....
Froch Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Froch) (also known as       299.16 percent ad
 Zhangyuan Metal Industry Co. Ltd.).................             valorem
All Others..........................................     1.10 percent ad
                                                                 valorem
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to 
section

[[Page 4938]]

703(d) of the Act, we instructed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of CWASPP from the PRC 
which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after July 10, 2008, the date of the publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with sections 
703(d) of the Act, we will be issuing instructions to CBP to 
discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty 
purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
on or after November 7, 2008, but to continue the suspension of 
liquidation of all entries from July 10, 2008 through November 6, 2008.
    We will issue a CVD order and reinstate the suspension of 
liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if the ITC issues a final 
affirmative injury determination, and will require a cash deposit of 
estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the 
amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or 
threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be 
terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a 
result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

ITC Notification

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

Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

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

    Dated: January 21, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

APPENDIX

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Whether the Department Reasonably Treated China as a 
Developed Country for CVD De Minimis Purposes
Comment 2: Whether Winner HK Should be Treated as a PRC Entity for 
Purposes of Attribution
Comment 3: Whether the Total Sales Figure Used as the Denominator in 
the Preliminary Determination and Interim Decision Memorandum is 
Correct
Comment 4: Whether the Department Has the Legal Authority to Apply the 
CVD Law to the PRC While Simultaneously Treating the PRC as an NME in 
Parallel Antidumping Investigations
Comment 5: Whether the Provision of SSC to SOEs Constitutes the 
Provision of a Good by a Government Authority
Comment 6: Whether the Sale of HRS from Privately-Held Trading 
Companies Constitutes a Financial Contribution Under the Act
Comment 7: Whether the Provision of SSC is Specific and the 
Applicability of the Department's Use of AFA in its Determination of De 
Facto Specificity
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Countervail the Provision of 
Land
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Countervail FIE Tax Programs 
that are Industry, Regionally, or Export/Domestic Use Neutral
Comment 10: Whether the Department's Prevailing Interest Rate 
Methodology Should be Used to Calculate any Subsidy in this Case
Comment 11: Whether the Department's Choice of Adverse Facts Applied to 
the Non-Cooperating Respondent is Contrary to Law
Comment 12: Whether the Department's Methodology for Determining the 
All-Others rate in its Amended Preliminary Results is Unreasonable
[FR Doc. E9-1829 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S