[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71072-71075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-805]


Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From 
Mexico

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request for an expedited changed 
circumstances review from Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (TUNA) and 
Lamina y Placa Comercial, S.A. de C.V. (Lamina y Placa), the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded non-
alloy steel pipe (CWP) from Mexico pursuant to section 751(b) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216 and 
351.221(c)(3). We have preliminarily concluded that Lamina y Placa is 
the successor-in-interest to TUNA and, as a result, should be accorded 
the same treatment previously given to TUNA with respect to the 
antidumping duty order on CWP from

[[Page 71073]]

Mexico. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

DATES: Effective Date: November 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on CWP from 
Mexico on November 2, 1992. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: 
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic 
of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded 
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992).
    On May 17, 2010, both TUNA and Lamina y Placa filed a request for a 
changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on CWP from 
Mexico. TUNA and Lamina y Placa claim that Lamina y Placa is the 
successor-in-interest to TUNA in accordance with section 751(b) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and provided documentation supporting its 
assertion.
    On June 30, 2010, the Department issued a questionnaire to TUNA and 
Lamina y Placa seeking additional information related to their request 
for a changed circumstances review. On July 28, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y 
Placa filed their response to the questionnaire. On August 31, 2010, 
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to TUNA and Lamina y 
Placa.
    On September 10, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa submitted their 
supplemental questionnaire response. On September 21, 2010 and 
September 27, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa provided further 
information clarifying the ownership structure and legal status of both 
entities as requested by the Department. See Memorandum to the File, 
dated October 14, 2010.
    In response to TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's request, the Department 
is initiating a changed circumstances review of this order.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 
millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end 
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). 
These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes 
and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, 
natural gas, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating 
systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other 
related uses, and generally meet ASTM A-53 specifications. Standard 
pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for 
fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and 
support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the 
construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and related 
industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order. All 
carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined 
above are included within the scope of this order, except line pipe, 
oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and 
tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. 
Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters 
the United States as line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas pipelines 
is also not included in this order.
    Imports of the products covered by this order are currently 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 
7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 
7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this order is dispositive.

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will 
conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from 
an interested party or receipt of information concerning an antidumping 
duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a 
review of the order. On May 17, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y Placa submitted 
their request for a changed circumstances review, claiming Lamina y 
Placa is the successor-in-interest to TUNA. In its submission, TUNA and 
Lamina y Placa explain that a majority of TUNA's assets were 
transferred to an affiliated company, Temple de Monterrey, S.A. de C.V. 
(Temple de Monterrey) on September 30, 2009. TUNA and Lamina y Placa 
state Temple de Monterrey was subsequently acquired by Lamina y Placa 
on December 28, 2009. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's submission, dated 
May 17, 2010 at 3 and Exhibits 1 and 2. As a result of the asset 
transfer and corporate merger, TUNA and Lamina y Placa clarify that all 
of TUNA's assets previously transferred to Temple de Monterrey are now 
held by Lamina y Placa. Id. However, TUNA and Lamina y Placa also 
maintain that the merger did not dissolve TUNA as a legal entity, and 
while TUNA does not currently have manufacturing or selling activities, 
it does retain ownership of certain buildings and land. See TUNA's and 
Lamina y Placa's submission, dated September 27, 2010 at 2 and Exhibit 
1.
    No other interested parties commented on TUNA's and Lamina y 
Placa's submissions. Based on the information submitted by TUNA and 
Lamina y Placa, the Department has determined that changed 
circumstances sufficient to warrant a review exist. See 19 CFR 
351.216(d). The Department also finds that expedited action is 
warranted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii), and therefore we 
are publishing a notice of initiation and preliminary results for this 
changed circumstances review concurrently. See Ball Bearings and Parts 
Thereof from Japan: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed-
Circumstances Review, 71 FR 14679 (March 23, 2006).

Preliminary Results

    In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a 
successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines 
several factors including, but not limited to: (1) Management; (2) 
production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer 
base. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 
1992) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: 
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005) (Plate from 
Romania). While no single factor or combination of factors will 
necessarily be dispositive, the Department generally will consider the 
new company to be the successor to the predecessor if the resulting 
operations are essentially the same as those of the predecessor 
company. See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 
6945 (February 14, 1994), and Plate from Romania, 70 FR 22847.

[[Page 71074]]

Thus, if the record evidence demonstrates the new company operates as 
the same business entity as the predecessor company with respect to the 
production and sale of the subject merchandise, the Department may 
assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor. See, 
e.g., Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway: Final Results of 
Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 
9979, 9980 (March 1, 1999).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), we preliminarily 
determine that Lamina y Placa is the successor-in-interest to TUNA. In 
its submissions, TUNA and Lamina y Placa provide documentation showing 
the transfer of production and sales operations from TUNA to Lamina y 
Placa resulted in little or no change in management, production 
facilities, supplier relationships, or customer base.
    In its initial submission, dated May 17, 2010, TUNA and Lamina y 
Placa state: (1) The production of subject merchandise at Lamina y 
Placa is managed by the same individuals who previously managed 
production operations of subject merchandise at TUNA prior to the 
merger; (2) subject merchandise produced by Lamina y Placa is in the 
same location and at the same capacity as produced by TUNA before the 
merger; (3) Lamina y Placa consumes the same material inputs as TUNA 
did, sourced from the same major suppliers; and (4) Lamina y Placa 
sells merchandise to the same customer base to which TUNA made sales.
    TUNA and Lamina y Placa further explain that the ultimate ownership 
of the production facilities remain the same, and did not change as a 
result of the transfer of a majority of TUNA's assets to Temple de 
Monterrey, and the latter's eventual merger with Lamina y Placa. 
Additionally, TUNA and Lamina y Placa point out that the Department has 
previously collapsed both companies into a single producer entity in 
the 1998-1999 administrative review of this order (i.e., the most 
recently completed administrative review of TUNA). See TUNA's and 
Lamina y Placa's submission, dated May 17, 2010 at 6, citing Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 
77560, 77562 (December 20, 2000) (1998-1999 Preliminary Results); 
unchanged in Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Mexico: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 21311 (April 
30, 2001) and unchanged in Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From 
Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 66 FR 37454 (July 18, 2001).
    In performing our analysis, we first examined the organization 
charts showing the management structure and ownership information for 
TUNA, Lamina y Placa and Temple de Monterrey both prior to and after 
the merger of Temple de Monterrey into Lamina y Placa. See TUNA's and 
Lamina y Placa's submissions, dated May 17, 2010 (Exhibit 3), July 28, 
2010 (Exhibit 4), September 10, 2010 (Exhibit 1) and September 21, 2010 
(Exhibits 1 and 2). TUNA and Lamina y Placa note that the management of 
TUNA's pipe facility did not change between TUNA's asset transfer to 
Temple de Monterrey and Temple de Monterrey's merger into Lamina y 
Placa. The only significant changes involve transfers of personnel from 
other affiliated entities, the promotion of Lamina y Placa employees to 
higher positions and the creation of new positions. As such, Lamina y 
Placa's management structure after the merger of Temple de Monterrey, 
for the most part, resembles its previous management structure. See 
TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's submissions, dated July 28, 2010 at 5-6 and 
Exhibit 4.
    Second, we reviewed production data of subject merchandise from 
production facilities of both Lamina y Placa and TUNA covering periods 
prior to and following the asset transfer and corporate merger. Data 
show both entities maintained the same production capacity. See TUNA's 
and Lamina y Placa's submissions, dated May 17, 2010 and July 28, 2010 
at Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively.
    Third, we examined the list of major input suppliers to TUNA for 
the production of subject merchandise prior to the transfer of a 
majority of its assets to Temple de Monterrey. We compared this to the 
list of suppliers of major inputs to Lamina y Placa for the production 
of subject merchandise following the transfer of TUNA's assets and 
found both lists were identical. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's 
submission, dated May 17, 2010 at Exhibit 5. Meanwhile, TUNA and Lamina 
y Placa clarified that Lamina y Placa also maintained relationships 
with additional suppliers for other material, finished goods and 
services. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's submission, dated July 28, 
2010 at Exhibit 6.
    Fourth, we reviewed the customer lists for TUNA's sales of subject 
merchandise prior to the transfer of its assets to Temple de Monterrey 
and Lamina y Placa's customers following its merger with Temple de 
Monterrey. TUNA and Lamina y Placa explained that prior to the asset 
transfer and corporate merger, Lamina y Placa did not operate any 
facilities for the production of subject merchandise. However, TUNA and 
Lamina y Placa add that TUNA was involved as a toller for Lamina y 
Placa, wherein Lamina y Placa placed orders with TUNA for certain 
subject and non-subject merchandise and paid TUNA a monthly sum for the 
volume of merchandise produced. TUNA and Lamina y Placa state this 
arrangement served as a basis for the Department's treatment of Lamina 
y Placa as a producer in the 1998-1999 Preliminary Results (unchanged 
in the final results and amended final results) and its decision to 
collapse both companies as a single entity.\1\ See TUNA's and Lamina y 
Placa's submission, dated July 28, 2010 at 1 and 2. As a result, Lamina 
y Placa claim that prior to the asset transfer and corporate merger, it 
sold merchandise to its own customers, while TUNA sold merchandise to 
only a few direct customers. See TUNA's and Lamina y Placa's 
submission, dated July 28, 2010 at 7-8 and Exhibit 7. However, since 
the asset transfer and corporate merger, Lamina y Placa explains it has 
maintained the same customer base while also absorbing TUNA's former 
direct customers. Id. at 7-8. Therefore, based on record information, 
we preliminarily find that Lamina y Placa's customers include those of 
TUNA's prior to the asset transfer and corporate merger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department also collapsed a third affiliated company, 
Lamina y Placa Monterrey, which engaged in similar tolling 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above, we preliminarily find that Lamina 
y Placa is the successor-in-interest to TUNA in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.221(c)(3)(i). As such, Lamina y Placa is entitled to TUNA's cash-
deposit rate with respect to entries of subject merchandise. Should our 
final results remain the same as these preliminary results, effective 
the date of publication of the final results we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection to assign entries of merchandise produced 
or exported by Lamina y Placa the antidumping duty cash-deposit rate 
applicable to TUNA.

Public Comment

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 15 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 22 days after the date of publication of this 
notice or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may 
submit

[[Page 71075]]

case briefs not later than 15 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, which must be 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than 20 
days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit 
case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed circumstances review are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Consistent with 19 CFR 
351.216(e), we will issue the final results of this changed-
circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which 
this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these 
preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.
    During the course of this antidumping duty changed circumstances 
review, the cash deposit requirements for the subject merchandise 
exported and manufactured by Lamina y Placa will continue to be the 
all-others rate established in the investigation. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and 
Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 
(November 2, 1992).
    This notice of initiation and preliminary results is published in 
accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.216 and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).

    Dated: November 15, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-29384 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P