[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57444-57449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23547]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-957]


Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 
Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances Determination

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

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, Joseph Shuler, and 
Matthew Jordan, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0189, (202) 482-1293, and (202) 482-1540, respectively.

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, or period of 
investigation, is January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008.

Case History

    The following events have occurred since our preliminary 
determination. See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 
Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, 75 FR 9163 (March 1, 
2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
    On February 23, 2010, the Department received supplemental 
questionnaire

[[Page 57445]]

responses from Hengyang Steel Tube Group International Trading, Inc. 
(``Hengyang Trading''), Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Hengyang 
Valin''), Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd. (``Hengyang MPM''), Xigang 
Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Xigang Seamless''), Wuxi Seamless 
Special Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Special Pipe''), Jiangsu Xigang Group Co., 
Ltd. (``Xigang Group''), and Wuxi Resources Steel Making Co., Ltd. 
(``Resources Steel''), as well as responses from Hunan Valin Xiangtan 
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (``Valin Xiangtan''), Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube 
Co., Ltd. (``Sifang''), Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd. (``Hunan Valin''), 
and Hunan Valin Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (``Valin Group''), 
(collectively, ``Hengyang'').
    On March 3, 2010, and March 8, 2010, the Department issued 
questionnaires regarding new subsidy allegations to Tianjin Pipe 
(Group) Corp., Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan 
Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International Economic 
and Trading Co., Ltd., TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, ``TPCO''), and Hengyang. The Department received a 
response from TPCO on March 10, 2010. The Department received a 
response from Hengyang on March 23, 2010. The Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to Hengyang on March 29, 2010, and received 
a response on April 13, 2010. The Department issued a letter on April 
5, 2010, to the Government of China (``GOC'') asking for an update of 
its initial questionnaire response with respect to coking coal purchase 
information supplied to the GOC by Hengyang. The Department received a 
response to this letter on May 4, 2010. The Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire regarding export restrictions to the GOC on 
April 13, 2010 and received a response on April 20, 2010. The 
Department issued a letter on April 16, 2010, to the GOC regarding CRC 
China, a company identified by Hengyang as the ultimate owner of 
subsidiary companies that held ownership stakes in the responding 
Hengyang companies since December 11, 2001.\1\ The Department received 
a response on April 30, 2010. The Department sent a letter to the GOC 
on May 5, 2010, regarding the GOC's April 30 response on CRC China. The 
Department received a response on May 12, 2010. The Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to the GOC on May 18, 2010, and received a 
response on May 25, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Volume 5, page 5 of Hengyang's January 4, 2010, 
questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 1, 2010, Petitioners \2\ requested alignment of the final 
countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the 
companion antidumping duty investigation of seamless pipe from the PRC, 
in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4). On March 15, 2010, the 
Department announced the alignment of the final countervailing duty 
determination of seamless pipe from the PRC with the final 
determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of 
seamless pipe from the PRC. See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 FR 13255 (March 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Petitioners in this investigation are United States Steel 
Corporation (``U.S. Steel''); TMK IPSCO; V&M Star L.P.; and the 
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, 
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-
CLC (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 14, 2010, U.S. Steel filed an uncreditworthy allegation 
with respect to Xigang Group, Xigang Seamless, Special Pipe, and 
Resources Steel. On May 12, 2010, the Department announced it would not 
investigate the uncreditworthiness allegation. See Memorandum from 
Joseph Shuler and Shane Subler, International Trade Compliance 
Analysts, to Susan Kuhbach, Director, Office 1, Import Administration, 
entitled ``Uncreditworthy Allegation,'' (May 12, 2010).
    On May 12, 2010, the Department received a response from U.S. Steel 
regarding the GOC's April 20, 2010, export restrictions response.
    From June 7, 2010, to June 18, 2010, we conducted verification of 
the questionnaire responses submitted by Hengyang and TPCO. See 
Memorandum from Shane Subler and Matthew Jordan, International Trade 
Compliance Analysts, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, Office Director, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, entitled ``Verification Report: Hengyang 
Steel Tube Group International Trading, Inc. (``Hengyang Trading''), 
Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Hengyang Valin''), Hengyang 
Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd. (``Hengyang MPM''), Xigang Seamless Steel Tube 
Co., Ltd. (``Xigang Seamless''), Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd. 
(``Special Pipe''), Jiangsu Xigang Group Co., Ltd. (``Xigang Group''), 
Wuxi Resources Steel Making Co., Ltd. (``Resources Steel''), Hunan 
Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (``Valin Xiangtan''), Wuxi Sifang 
Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Sifang''), Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd. (``Hunan 
Valin''), and Hunan Valin Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (``Valin 
Group'') (collectively, ``Hengyang'')'' (July 16, 2010); and Memorandum 
from Scott Holland and Joseph Shuler, International Trade Compliance 
Analysts, Office 1, to Susan H. Kuhbach, Office Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, entitled ``Verification Report: Tianjin Pipe 
(Group) Corporation (``TPCO Group''), Tianjin Pipe Iron Manufacturing 
Co., Ltd. (``TPCO Iron''), Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd. 
(``Yuantong''), Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Co., 
Ltd. (``TPCO International''), and TPCO Charging Development Co., Ltd. 
(``Charging'') (collectively, ``TPCO'') (August 9, 2010).
    On August 13, 2010, the Department issued its Hengyang Post-
Preliminary Analysis and TPCO Post-Preliminary Analysis.\3\ We received 
case briefs from the GOC, TPCO, Hengyang, U.S. Steel, Toyota Tsusho 
American Inc. (``TAI''), and Salem Steel North America, LLC (``Salem 
Steel'') on August 26, 2010. We returned the case brief of Hengyang on 
August 26, 2010, as it appeared to contain new factual information not 
on the record of this case. Hengyang resubmitted its case brief on 
August 30, 2010. The GOC, TPCO, Hengyang, and U.S. Steel submitted 
rebuttal briefs on September 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum from Susan H. Kuhbach, Office Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 13, 2010, 
``Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Seamless Carbon and 
Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China: Post-Preliminary Analysis and Calculation 
Memorandum for: Hengyang Steel Tube Group International Trading, 
Inc. (``Hengyang Trading''), Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 
(``Hengyang Valin''), Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd. (``Hengyang 
MPM''), Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (``Xigang Seamless''), 
Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Special Pipe''), Jiangsu 
Xigang Group Co., Ltd. (``Xigang Group''), Wuxi Resources Steel 
Making Co., Ltd. (``Resources Steel''), Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & 
Steel Co., Ltd. (``Valin Xiangtan''), Wuxi Sifang Steel Tube Co., 
Ltd. (``Sifang''), Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd. (``Hunan Valin''), 
Hunan Valin Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd. (``Valin Group'') 
(collectively ``Hengyang'') (August 13, 2010) (``Hengyang Post-
Preliminary Analysis''); and Memorandum from Edward Yang to Ronald 
Lorentzen, ``Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Seamless 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China: Post-Preliminary Analysis and 
Calculation Memorandum for (TPCO)'' (August 13, 2010) (``TPCO Post-
Preliminary Analysis'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GOC, TPCO, and Petitioners requested a hearing. The same 
parties later withdrew their requests. Therefore, no hearing was held. 
Hengyang and U.S. Steel requested a meeting. A meeting with Hengyang 
was held on September

[[Page 57446]]

2, 2010. A meeting with U.S. Steel was held on September 3, 2010.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation consists of certain seamless carbon 
and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) pipes and redraw hollows, 
less than or equal to 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, 
regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (e.g., hot-finished 
or cold-drawn), end finish (e.g., plain end, beveled end, upset end, 
threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish (e.g., bare, 
lacquered or coated). Redraw hollows are any unfinished carbon or alloy 
steel (other than stainless steel) pipe or ``hollow profiles'' suitable 
for cold finishing operations, such as cold drawing, to meet the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') or American 
Petroleum Institute (``API'') specifications referenced below, or 
comparable specifications. Specifically included within the scope are 
seamless carbon and alloy steel (other than stainless steel) standard, 
line, and pressure pipes produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-
333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, ASTM A-1024, and the API 5L 
specifications, or comparable specifications, and meeting the physical 
parameters described above, regardless of application, with the 
exception of the exclusion discussed below.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) 
All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing 
specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of ASTM 
A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached couplings. 
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are all mechanical, 
boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products 
conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e., outside diameter and 
wall thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or API 5L specifications.
    The merchandise covered by the investigation is currently 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 7304.19.1020, 7304.19.1030, 
7304.19.1045, 7304.19.1060, 7304.19.5020, 7304.19.5050, 7304.31.6050, 
7304.39.0016, 7304.39.0020, 7304.39.0024, 7304.39.0028, 7304.39.0032, 
7304.39.0036, 7304.39.0040, 7304.39.0044, 7304.39.0048, 7304.39.0052, 
7304.39.0056, 7304.39.0062, 7304.39.0068, 7304.39.0072, 7304.51.5005, 
7304.51.5060, 7304.59.6000, 7304.59.8010, 7304.59.8015, 7304.59.8020, 
7304.59.8025, 7304.59.8030, 7304.59.8035, 7304.59.8040, 7304.59.8045, 
7304.59.8050, 7304.59.8055, 7304.59.8060, 7304.59.8065, and 
7304.59.8070.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to 
this scope is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    On May 26, 2010, Salem Steel, a U.S. importer of cold drawn 
seamless mechanical tubing, submitted comments on the scope of this 
investigation. Salem requested that the Department amend the scope of 
this investigation to exclude CD Mechanical Tubing from the scope of 
the investigation. On June 4, 2010, Salem Steel submitted proposed 
scope language to exclude CD mechanical tubing from the scope of the 
investigation. On June 8, 2010, TAI submitted comments supporting 
Salem's proposed scope exclusion language. On June 23, 2010, the 
Department issued a proposed scope modification via letter and 
requested comments. See Letter to Interested Parties, Regarding the 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy 
Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated June 23, 2010. Specifically, the Department's proposed 
scope modification language excluded ``all mechanical, boiler, 
condenser and heat exchange tubing, except when such products conform 
to the dimensional requirements, i.e., outside diameter and wall 
thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or APL 5L specifications.'' Id. On 
June 30, 2010, TAI and Salem Steel submitted comments that both 
supported the Department's proposed scope modifications, as well as 
language that suggested additional modifications to the scope of the 
investigation. On July 2, 2010, Petitioners also submitted comments 
that both supported the Department's proposed scope modification, as 
well as language that suggested additional modifications to the scope 
of the investigation. On August 20, 2010, the Department issued a 
proposed scope modification via memorandum and requested comments. On 
August 23, 2010, TAI submitted comments supporting the Department's 
proposed scope modification language. After considering parties' 
comments, the Department has determined to remove ASTM A-335 from the 
list of covered specifications included within the scope of this 
investigation, and include the following exclusion language in the 
scope:

    Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations 
are: (1) All pipes meeting aerospace, hydraulic, and bearing tubing 
specifications; (2) all pipes meeting the chemical requirements of 
ASTM A-335, whether finished or unfinished; and (3) unattached 
couplings. Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are 
all mechanical, boiler, condenser and heat exchange tubing, except 
when such products conform to the dimensional requirements, i.e., 
outside diameter and wall thickness of ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106 or API 
5L specifications.

    See Comment 5 of the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
for additional information.

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 U.S. 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 November 2, 2009, the ITC issued 
its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with 
material injury by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of seamless 
pipe from the PRC. See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel 
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From China, 74 FR 57521 (November 6, 
2009) and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and 
Pressure Pipe from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-469 and 731-TA-1168 
(Preliminary) (November 2009).

Critical Circumstances

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department concluded that 
critical circumstances did not exist with respect to imports of 
seamless pipe from the PRC from TPCO, in accordance with 703(e)(1) of 
the Act, because TPCO's shipments did not reach the threshold for a 
finding that there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise 
over a relatively short period.\4\ However, in the Preliminary 
Determination, the Department concluded that critical circumstances do 
exist with respect to imports of seamless pipe from the PRC from 
Hengyang, in accordance with 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act. For ``all other'' 
exporters, we determined that critical circumstances do exist with 
respect to imports of seamless pipe from the PRC from ``all other'' 
exporters, in

[[Page 57447]]

accordance with section 703(e)(1)(B) of the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 75 FR at 9165.
    \5\ See 75 FR at 9165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have not received any information since the Preliminary 
Determination that would lead us to change our preliminary finding. 
Therefore, in accordance with 705(a)(2) of the Act, we continue to find 
that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of subject 
merchandise from the PRC from Hengyang and ``all other'' exporters, but 
not for imports from TPCO.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the Memorandum from Susan H. 
Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing 
Duty Investigation of Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, 
Line, and Pressure Pipe (``Seamless Pipe'') from the People's Republic 
of China'' (September 10, 2010) (hereafter ``Decision Memorandum''), 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an 
Appendix is a list of the issues that parties have raised and to which 
we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a 
complete discussion of all issues raised in this investigation and the 
corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 in the main building of the 
Commerce Department. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Use of Adverse Facts Available

    For purposes of this final determination, we have continued to rely 
on facts available and to draw an adverse inference, in accordance with 
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, to determine that the GOC's 
dominance of the market in the PRC for steel round billets supports the 
reasonable conclusion that this market is significantly distorted. 
Consequently, we are not relying on domestic prices in the PRC in 
determining whether a benefit was conferred through the GOC's provision 
of steel round billets to the mandatory respondents. Similarly, we have 
continued to apply AFA to determine that all of the steel round billets 
were provided by government authorities.
    The Department continues to find that the use of ``facts otherwise 
available'' is warranted with regard to the GOC's provision of 
electricity to the mandatory respondents. Specifically, the Department 
requested that the GOC explain how electricity cost increases are 
reflected in retail price increases. The GOC responded that it was 
gathering this information, but it did not request an extension from 
the Department for submitting this information after the original 
questionnaire deadline date. Because the GOC did not provide the 
requested information, we determine that necessary information is not 
on the record. Accordingly, the use of facts otherwise available under 
section 776(a) of the Act is appropriate. By not responding to our 
questionnaire, the GOC has failed to act to the best of its ability. 
Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act. Specifically, we find that the GOC's 
provision of electricity constitutes a financial contribution within 
the meaning of section 771(5)(D) of the Act and is specific within the 
meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. We have also relied on an 
adverse inference in selecting a benchmark for determining the 
existence and amount of the benefit.
    The Department continues to find that the use of ``facts otherwise 
available'' is warranted with regard to TPCO's reported receipt of 
countervailable grants. The Department requested that the GOC provide 
information about these grants in the initial questionnaire and a 
supplemental questionnaire. The GOC did not provide the requested 
information, asserting that it needed more time to gather the data. 
Although the GOC responded that it was gathering this information, it 
did not request an extension from the Department for submitting this 
information after the supplemental questionnaire deadline date. Because 
the GOC did not provide the requested information concerning these 
grants, we determine that necessary information is not on the record 
and that the GOC did not provide requested information by the 
submission deadline. Accordingly, the use of facts otherwise available 
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act is appropriate. Also, we 
determine that the GOC has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with our request for information as it 
did not respond by the deadline dates, nor did it explain why it is 
unable to provide the requested information, with the result that an 
adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is warranted in 
the application of facts available. We find that these subsidies are a 
direct transfer of funds within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of 
the Act, providing a benefit in the amount of the grant. See 19 CFR 
351.504(a). We determine, in the absence of a response from the GOC, 
that the subsidies received under this program are limited to TPCO. 
Hence, we find that these subsidies are specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    In a departure from the Preliminary Determination, the Department 
now finds that the use of ``facts otherwise available'' pursuant to 
section 776(a) of the Act is warranted with regard to the provision of 
coking coal for less than adequate remuneration (``LTAR''). In the 
Preliminary Determination, based on the information on the record at 
that time, the Department found that none of the mandatory respondents 
received benefits under the program.\6\ At that time, Hengyang was 
scheduled to provide a supplemental questionnaire response on behalf of 
certain cross-owned affiliates. Accordingly, the Department stated, 
``We intend to address {Hengyang's supplemental{time}  response in a 
post-preliminary determination.'' \7\ In Hengyang's February 23, 2010 
supplemental questionnaire response, Hengyang indicated that a cross-
owned affiliate used coking coal. Accordingly, subsequent to the 
Preliminary Determination, the Department investigated the allegation 
concerning coking coal provided for LTAR. In the context of its 
investigation, the Department requested information from the GOC about 
the coking coal suppliers and the coking coal industry within the PRC. 
The GOC did not provide the requested information. Because the GOC did 
not provide the requested information concerning the coking coal 
industry within the PRC, we determine that necessary information is not 
on the record. Accordingly, the use of facts otherwise available 
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act is appropriate. Also, we 
determine that the GOC has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with our request for information, with 
the result that an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act is warranted in the application of facts available. Consequently, 
we have applied AFA to

[[Page 57448]]

determine that all of the coking coal was provided by government 
authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 75 FR at 9180.
    \7\ See 75 FR at 9170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a departure from the Preliminary Determination, the Department 
now finds that the use of ``facts otherwise available'' is warranted 
with regard to export restrictions on coke. In the Preliminary 
Determination, the Department found the program to be not 
countervailable.\8\ After the Preliminary Determination, we requested 
additional information on this program from the GOC. The GOC failed to 
answer certain questions from the supplemental questionnaires, which we 
described in the TPCO Post-Preliminary Analysis and Hengyang Post-
Preliminary Analysis.\9\ Because the GOC did not provide the requested 
information concerning the coke industry within the PRC, we determine 
that necessary information is not on the record. Accordingly, the use 
of facts otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act is 
appropriate. Also, we determine that the GOC has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with our request for 
information, with the result that an adverse inference pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act is warranted in the application of facts 
available. In drawing an adverse inference, we determine that the GOC's 
export restraints on coke constitute a financial contribution (i.e., 
provision of goods) to PRC producers of downstream goods that 
incorporate coke within the meaning of sections 771(5)(B) and (D)(ii) 
of the Act. Moreover, as an adverse inference, we find that GOC's 
export restraints on coke are specific to producers of seamless pipe in 
the PRC within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. Accordingly, 
we determine that, through these export restraints, the GOC is 
providing inputs to downstream producers of seamless pipe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 75 FR at 9179.
    \9\ See TPCO Post-Preliminary Analysis at pages 3-9; see also 
Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis at pages 25-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also now finds that the use of ``facts otherwise 
available'' is warranted with regard to deed tax exemption. In the 
Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis, we determined that Hengyang Valin 
and Valin Xiangtan each received benefits under this program.\10\ We 
asked the GOC to update its response to the initial questionnaire 
regarding the benefits received by Hengyang Valin and Valin Xiangtan. 
However, the GOC stated that it has no record of either company 
receiving benefits from this program and, therefore, did not provide a 
response to any parts of the original questionnaire with respect to 
this program.\11\ Because the GOC did not provide the requested 
information concerning these exemptions, we determine that necessary 
information is not on the record. Accordingly, the use of facts 
otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act is 
appropriate. Also, we determine that the GOC has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with our request for 
information. We determine that these deed tax exemptions confer a 
countervailable benefit on Hengyang. The deed tax exemptions are a 
financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone.\12\ In the 
absence of a response from the GOC, we find, as an adverse inference 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, that the subsidies received 
under this program are limited to Hengyang and, therefore, are specific 
under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. The amount of the 
countervailable benefit is the amount of deed tax Hengyang would have 
paid in the absence of this program.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis at pages 22-23.
    \11\ See Response of the Government of China to the Department's 
Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire (May 5, 2010) (``G4SR'') at 1.
    \12\ See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act.
    \13\ See 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the use of ``facts otherwise available'' 
is warranted with regard to CRC China and its subsidiaries. In the 
Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis, we found that Hengyang and the GOC 
failed to provide complete information on CRC China or its 
subsidiaries.\14\ Thus, we had no information to determine the 
ownership structure of CRC China or its subsidiaries, or to determine 
whether CRC China or its subsidiaries received countervailable 
subsidies. We also could not determine whether CRC China and/or its 
subsidiaries have other cross-owned affiliates (e.g., producers of 
seamless pipe) that received countervailable subsidies. Because the GOC 
did not provide the requested information concerning CRC China and its 
subsidiaries, we determine that necessary information is not on the 
record. Accordingly, the use of facts otherwise available pursuant to 
section 776(a) of the Act is appropriate. Also, we determine that the 
GOC has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to 
comply with our request for information. Consequently, an adverse 
inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act is warranted in the 
application of facts available. For purposes of this final 
determination, we determine that CRC China together with its 
subsidiaries benefitted from all countervailable programs that at least 
one respondent in this investigation has used because we do not have 
information on the record concerning which programs CRC China and its 
subsidiaries actually used, but do have information that exporters or 
producers of seamless pipe and their cross-owned companies did use and 
benefit from these programs. For each of these programs, we are 
applying the highest rate that we calculated for that program for the 
responding Hengyang companies as a whole or for TPCO.\15\ Specifically, 
we will apply the highest calculated rate for the identical program in 
this investigation if either Hengyang or TPCO used the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Hengyang Post-Preliminary Analysis at 8.
    \15\ Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation, Tianjin Pipe Iron 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product Co., Ltd., 
Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO 
Charging Development Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``TPCO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a full discussion of these issues, please see the Decision 
Memorandum, at ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts 
Available.''

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 
calculated a rate for each individually investigated producer/exporter 
of the subject merchandise. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states 
that for companies not investigated, we will determine an ``all 
others'' rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy 
rates established for exporters and producers individually 
investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy 
rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.
    Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the 
Act, we have not calculated the ``all others'' rate by weight averaging 
the rates of TPCO and Hengyang, because doing so risks disclosure of 
proprietary information. Therefore, we have calculated a simple average 
of the two responding firms' rates. Since both TPCO and Hengyang 
received countervailable export subsidies and the ``all others'' rate 
is a simple average based on the individually investigated exporters 
and producers, the ``all others'' rate includes export subsidies.
    We determine the total net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

[[Page 57449]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net subsidy
                  Exporter/Manufacturer                        rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp., Tianjin Pipe Iron                      13.66
 Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Tianguan Yuantong Pipe Product
 Co., Ltd., Tianjin Pipe International Economic and
 Trading Co., Ltd., and TPCO Charging Development Co.,
 Ltd....................................................
Hengyang Steel Tube Group Int'l Trading, Inc., Hengyang            53.65
 Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Hengyang Valin MPM Tube
 Co., Ltd., Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Wuxi
 Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd., Wuxi Resources Steel
 Making Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Xigang Group Co., Ltd., Hunan
 Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd., Wuxi Sifang
 Steel Tube Co., Ltd., Hunan Valin Steel Co., Ltd.,
 Hunan Valin Iron & Steel Group Co., Ltd................
All Others..............................................           33.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to discontinue the 
suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject 
merchandise entered on or after June 29, 2010, but to continue the 
suspension of liquidation of entries made from March 1, 2010, through 
June 28, 2010.
    We will issue a countervailing duty order if the ITC issues a final 
affirmative injury determination, and will instruct CBP to suspend 
liquidation of entries of seamless pipe from the PRC and to 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 deposits 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: September 10, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum

General Issues

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to the PRC
Comment 2 Whether Application of the CVD Law to NMEs Violates the 
Administrative Protection Act
Comment 3 Double Counting/Overlapping Remedies
Comment 4 Cutoff Date for Identifying Subsidies
Comment 5 Scope of the Investigation

Provision of Steel Rounds for LTAR

Comment 6 Application of AFA in Determining the Benchmark for Steel 
Rounds
Comment 7 Government Ownership Should Not be the Dispositive Factor in 
Determining Whether a Financial Contribution Has Occurred
Comment 8 Trading Company Suppliers
Comment 9 Benchmark Issues

Government Policy Lending

Comment 10 Whether Chinese Commercial Banks Are ``Authorities''
Comment 11 Whether the Policy Loan Program Is De Jure Specific
Comment 12 Whether the Department Should Use an In-country Benchmark
Comment 13 External Benchmark Methodology

Whether There is a Provision of Land for LTAR

Comment 14 Financial Contribution
Comment 15 Whether to Use an In-country Benchmark
Comment 16 Whether There Are Flaws in the Thai Benchmark
Comment 17 Whether Land Is Specific
Comment 18 Provision of Land-use Rights to Hengyang

Provision of Coking Coal for LTAR

Comment 19 Countervailability of Program
Comment 20 Freight Benchmark for Coking Coal Purchases

Hengyang-specific Issues

Comment 21 Cross-ownership Between Hengyang Companies
Comment 22 Application of AFA to CRC China
Comment 23 Finding that the GOC Did Not Cooperate With Respect to CRC 
China
Comment 24 Hengyang Attribution
Comment 25 Hengyang Electricity Purchases
Comment 26 Currency Denomination for Hengyang Loans
Comment 27 Clerical Error Allegations for Debt Restructuring
Comment 28 Uncreditworthiness Allegation

TPCO-specific Issues

Comment 29 TPCO Attribution of Subsidies
Comment 30 TPCO Group Accelerated Depreciation

Other Issues

Comment 31 Export Restraints on Steel Rounds
Comment 32 Export Restraints on Coke
[FR Doc. 2010-23547 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P