[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32552-32562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13227]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-811]


Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination

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

DATES:  Effective Date: June 1, 2012.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily 
determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (certain 
steel pipe) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) 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 (Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the 
``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.
    Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing for 
60 days the final determination and extending provisional measures from 
a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will 
make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication 
of the preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On October 26, 2011, the Department received a petition concerning 
imports of certain steel pipe from Vietnam filed in proper form by 
Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, Wheatland Tube Company, and 
the United States Steel Corporation (petitioners).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India, 
Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petitions, filed on October 26, 2011 (the petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2011, the Department initiated an antidumping duty 
(AD) investigation on certain steel pipe from Vietnam.\2\ Additionally, 
in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate-rate status in non-market economy (NME) investigations such as 
this investigation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India, 
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 
76 FR 72164 November 22, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
    \3\ See id., 76 FR at 72169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 2011, the United States International Trade 
Commission (the Commission) issued its affirmative preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from 
Vietnam of certain steel pipe. The Commission published its preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register on December 16, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-482 and 731-TA-1191-1194 
(Preliminary), Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India, 
Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 76 FR 78313 (December 
16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaire

    On December 21, 2011, the Department issued to Vietnam Haiphong 
Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Haiphong Hongyuan) and SeAH 
Steel VINA Corporation (SeAH VINA) the NME AD questionnaire with 
product characteristics used in the designation of control numbers 
(CONNUMs) and assigned to the merchandise under consideration. Between 
January 18, 2012, and May 2, 2012, Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA 
submitted responses to the Department's original and supplemental 
sections A, C, and D questionnaires. On May 9 and 10, 2012, SeAH VINA 
submitted additional factor values for materials that it had previously 
classified as indirect rather than direct raw materials. On May 11, 
2012, petitioners submitted comments on those submissions from SeAH 
VINA.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2011, through 
September 30, 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are circular welded 
carbon-quality steel pipe from Vietnam. For a full description of the 
scope of the investigation, as set forth in the Initiation Notice see 
the ``Scope of the Investigation'' in Appendix I of this notice.

Scope Comments

    The Department 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 the date of signature of the 
Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164. We received 
comments from SeAH VINA, a Vietnamese producer, on December 5, 2011, 
and we received rebuttal comments from petitioners Allied Tube and 
Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and Wheatland Tube Company on December 14, 
2011. After reviewing all comments, we have adopted the ``Scope of the 
Investigations'' section of this notice, in Appendix I. The Department 
also set aside a period of time for parties to comment on product 
characteristics for use in the AD duty questionnaire and indicated that 
in order to consider such comments, they should be submitted no later 
than December 9, 2012. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164-5. On 
December 9, 2011, we received comments from a UAE producer named 
Universal Tube and Plastics Industries, Ltd. and its U.S. affiliate, 
Prime Metal Corporation USA.
    As noted above, on December 5, 2011, SeAH VINA, a mandatory 
respondent in this investigation and the concurrent CVD investigations 
of certain steel pipe from Vietnam, filed comments arguing that the 
treatment of double and triple stenciled pipe in the scope of these 
investigations differs from previous treatment of these products under 
other orders on circular welded pipe. Specifically, SeAH VINA claims 
that the Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican orders on these products 
exclude ``Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that 
enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines * 
* *'' See SeAH VINA comments (December 5, 2011); see also Certain 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Mexico, the Republic 
of Korea, and Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

[[Page 32553]]

Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Third 
Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 66899, 66900 (Oct. 
28, 2011). According to SeAH VINA: (i) If the term ``class or kind of 
merchandise'' has meaning, it cannot have a different meaning when 
applied to the same products in two different cases; and (ii) the 
distinction between standard and line pipe reflected in the Brazil, 
Korean and Mexican orders derives from customs classifications 
administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and, thus, is 
more administrable.
    On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 
Wheatland Tube (collectively, Certain Petitioners), responded to SeAH 
VINA's comments stating that the scope as it appeared in the Initiation 
Notice reflected Petitioners' intended coverage. Certain Petitioners 
contend that pipe that is multi-stenciled to both line pipe and 
standard pipe specifications and meets the physical characteristics 
listed in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 
2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted 
(e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 
coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in standard pipe applications. 
Certain Petitioners state that, in recent years, the Department has 
rejected end-use scope classifications, preferring instead to rely on 
physical characteristics to define coverage, and the scope of these 
investigations has been written accordingly. Therefore, Certain 
Petitioners ask the Department to reject SeAH VINA's proposed scope 
modification.
    We agree with Certain Petitioners that the Department seeks to 
define the scopes of its proceedings based on the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from 
the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Moreover, we 
disagree with SeAH VINA's contention that once a ``class or kind of 
merchandise'' has been established that the same scope description must 
apply across all proceedings involving the product. For example, as the 
Department has gained experience in administering AD duty and 
countervailing duty orders, it has shifted away from end use 
classifications to scopes defined by the physical characteristics. Id. 
Thus, proceedings initiated on a given product many years ago may have 
end use classifications while more recent proceedings on the product 
would not. Compare, e.g., Countervailing Duty Order: Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Canada, 51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) (describing 
subject merchandise as being ``intended for use in drilling for oil and 
gas'') with Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's 
Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 
2010) (describing the subject merchandise in terms of physical 
characteristics without regard to use or intended use). Finally, 
Certain Petitioners have indicated the domestic industry's intent to 
include multi-stenciled products that otherwise meet the physical 
characteristics set out in the scope. Therefore, the Department is not 
adopting SeAH VINA's proposed modification of the scope.

Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated its intent to limit 
the number of quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires sent to exporters 
or producers to those companies identified in the petition.\6\ On 
November 16, 2011, the Department sent Q&V questionnaires to the ten 
companies identified in the petition as exporters or producers of 
certain steel pipe from Vietnam. The Department also posted the Q&V 
questionnaire for this investigation on its Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highligHTSUS-and-news.html. Of the ten companies to 
which the Department sent Q&V questionnaires, the Department received 
six Q&V responses.\7\ In addition, the Department also received two 
unsolicited Q&V responses.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72168.
    \7\ The Department received responses from Huu Lien Asia 
Corporation, Daiwa Lance International Co., Ltd., Hoa Phat Steel 
Pipe Co., Ltd., Hoa Sen Group, SeAH Steel VINA Corporation, and 
Vietnam Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
    \8\ The Department received unsolicited Q&V responses from 
Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd., and Sun 
Steel Joint Stock Co. (SUNSCO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the responses submitted to the Department, on December 20, 
2011, the Department selected Vietnam Haiphong and SeAH VINA as the 
only mandatory respondents for individual examination in this 
investigation. These two respondents account for the largest volumes of 
subject merchandise sold to the United States during the POI that can 
be reasonably examined.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See ``Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
Richard Weible, Director, Office 8; Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Respondent Selection,'' (Respondent Selection 
Memo) dated December 20, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country Comments

    On March 27, 2012, the Department determined that Bangladesh, 
India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the Philippines are 
countries comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic development.\10\ 
On March 28, 2012, the Department requested comments from the 
interested parties regarding the selection of a surrogate country. We 
received comments from Haiphong Hongyuan, SeAH VINA, and petitioners on 
April 18, 2012. We returned petitioners' comments on April 24, 2012, 
because they were not properly filed, and gave petitioners an 
opportunity to correct the errors and resubmit them. Petitioners 
responded in an April 26, 2012, submission, but did not resubmit their 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See ``Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Robert James, Program Manager, Office 7: Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam,'' dated March 27, 2012 (Surrogate Country 
List).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate 
country, see ``Surrogate Country'' and ``Surrogate Country Selection'' 
sections below.

Surrogate Value Comments

    On April 25, 2012, petitioners, Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA 
submitted surrogate factor valuation comments and data. On April 30, 
May 2, and May 3, 2012, respectively, petitioners, Haiphong Hongyuan 
and SeAH VINA and submitted rebuttal comments. Petitioners submitted 
further comments on May 9, 2012, to which SeAH VINA responded on May 
11, 2012.

Separate Rate Applications

    Between February 1, 2012, and March 28, 2012, the Department 
received separate rate applications from three companies in addition to 
those from the two mandatory respondents.\11\ See the ``Separate 
Rates'' section below for the full discussion of the treatment of the 
separate rate applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The following companies filed separate-rate applications: 
Haiphong Hongyuan, SeAH VINA, Huu Lien Asia Corporation, Hoa Phat 
Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., and SUNSCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On February 29, 2012, petitioners filed a timely request to 
postpone the issuance of the preliminary determination. On March 16, 
2012, the Department published in the Federal

[[Page 32554]]

Register a notice postponing the preliminary AD duty determination for 
this investigation of certain steel pipe from Vietnam.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India, 
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 15718 (March 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, petitioners treated Vietnam as an NME 
country.\13\ The Department considers Vietnam to be an NME country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the Department.\14\ Therefore, we continue to treat Vietnam 
as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See the petition, Vol. 2 at II-8; see also Initiation 
Notice, 76 FR at 72167.
    \14\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 
4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (NV), in 
most circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOP), 
valued in a surrogate market economy (ME) country or countries 
considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or 
more ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.\15\ Once the Department has identified the 
countries that are economically comparable to Vietnam, it identifies 
those countries which are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. From the list of countries which are both economically 
comparable and significant producers the Department will select a 
primary surrogate country based upon whether the data for valuing FOPs 
are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market 
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (Policy 
Bulletin) available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    As explained in our Surrogate Country List, the Department 
considers Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the 
Philippines all comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic 
development.\16\ Therefore, we consider all six countries as having 
satisfied this prong of the surrogate country selection criteria.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Surrogate Country List.
    \17\ See section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significant Producers of Comparable Merchandise

    Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act requires the Department to value 
FOPs in a surrogate country that is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Neither the statute nor the Department's 
regulations provide further guidance on what may be considered 
comparable merchandise. Given the absence of any definition in the 
statute or regulations, the Department looks to other sources such as 
the Policy Bulletin for guidance on defining comparable 
merchandise.\18\ The Policy Bulletin states that ``the terms 
`comparable level of economic development,' `comparable merchandise,' 
and `significant producer' are not defined in the statute.'' The Policy 
Bulletin further states that ``in all cases, if identical merchandise 
is produced, the country qualifies as a producer of comparable 
merchandise.'' Conversely, if identical merchandise is not produced, 
then a country producing comparable merchandise is sufficient in 
selecting a surrogate country.\19\ Further, when selecting a surrogate 
country, the statute requires the Department to consider the 
comparability of the merchandise, not the comparability of the 
industry.\20\ ``In cases where identical merchandise is not produced, 
the team must determine if other merchandise that is comparable is 
produced. How the team does this depends on the subject merchandise.'' 
\21\ In this regard, the Department recognizes that any analysis of 
comparable merchandise must be done on a case-by-case basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Policy Bulletin.
    \19\ The Policy Bulletin also states that ``if considering a 
producer of identical merchandise leads to data difficulties, the 
operations team may consider countries that produce a broader 
category of reasonably comparable merchandise,'' at note 6.
    \20\ See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674 
(December 15, 1997) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1 (to impose a requirement that merchandise must be 
produced by the same process and share the same end uses to be 
considered comparable would be contrary to the intent of the 
statute).
    \21\ See Policy Bulletin, at 2.

    In other cases, however, where there are major inputs, i.e., 
inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the 
production of the subject merchandise, e.g., processed agricultural, 
aquatic and mineral products, comparable merchandise should be 
identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the major 
inputs, including energy, where appropriate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id., at 3.

Further, the statute grants the Department discretion to examine 
various data sources for determining the best available 
information.\23\ Moreover, while the legislative history provides that 
the term ``significant producer'' includes any country that is a 
significant ``net exporter,'' \24\ it does not preclude reliance on 
additional or alternative metrics. To evaluate this factor we obtained 
export data using the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for HTSUS numbers 
7306.19, 7306.30, and 7306.50, which are comparable to the merchandise 
under consideration because circular welded pipe falls within these 
HTSUS categories. The GTA data demonstrate that all six of the 
countries identified in the Surrogate Country List were exporters of 
comparable merchandise during the POI, and thus ``significant 
producers'' of comparable merchandise under the legislative history. In 
particular, the selected surrogate country, India, had 156,174 metric 
tons of exports during the period of April through August, 2011.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See section 773(c) of the Act; Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. 
United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    \24\ See Conference Report accompanying H.R. 3, the 1988 Omnibus 
Trade & Competitiveness Act, H. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988) 
(Conference Report).
    \25\ As of this writing, data for the final month of the POI, 
September 2011, were not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Availability

    On April 25, 2012, petitioners Allied Tube and the JMC Group 
submitted surrogate value (SV) data for the Department's consideration, 
all of which were for Indonesia. On April 25, 2012, Haiphong Hongyuan 
and SeAH VINA submitted factor values for India. On April 30, 2012, 
petitioners submitted comments on the respondents' suggestion of India 
as the surrogate country. On May 2, 2012, Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH 
VINA submitted comments on petitioners' April 25, 2012, submission. We 
received further comments from petitioners on May 9, 2012. Allied Tube 
and the JMC Group provided publicly available and contemporaneous 
Indonesian SVs with

[[Page 32555]]

which to value the respondents' reported factors of production. They 
also provided the financial statements for an Indonesian producer of 
identical merchandise, and for an Indonesian pipe servicer. Respondents 
provided full SV data from India, and the financial statements of four 
Indian producers of identical or comparable merchandise.
    When evaluating SV data, the Department considers several factors 
including whether the SV data are publicly available, contemporaneous 
with the POI, represent a broad-market average, from an approved 
surrogate country, tax- and duty-exclusive, and specific to the input. 
There is no hierarchy among these criteria. It is the Department's 
practice to carefully consider the available evidence in light of the 
particular facts of each industry when undertaking its analysis.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Policy Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, the record contains no data for Bangladesh, 
Nicaragua, Pakistan or the Philippines. Accordingly, these countries 
will not be considered for surrogate country selection purposes at this 
time.

Surrogate Country Selection

    For this preliminary determination, the Department has selected 
India as the surrogate country for valuing FOPs. While we have found, 
as stated above, that both India and Indonesia are economically 
comparable to Vietnam, and that both countries are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise, we find that the SV data on the 
record for India is superior to that of the data for Indonesia. There 
are two reasons for this determination. First, we find the GTA data 
with respect to India are stronger than with respect to Indonesia. 
Specifically, one of the respondents imported the main input material 
in the making of subject merchandise, steel strip, under an HTS number 
that during the POI had extremely low imports into Indonesia (500 
kilograms). In contrast, India imported nearly three million kilograms 
of that HTS number during the five months for which we currently have 
data (after removing NME countries and countries with non-industry-
specific export subsidies). Second, we have on the record the financial 
statements of four Indian producers of pipe, whereas we have on the 
record the financial statements of only one Indonesian producer of 
pipe. The latter is a consolidated financial statement of a large 
conglomerate, and includes the financial data of subsidiary companies 
involved in fields far different from pipe production (e.g, 
telecommunications). Furthermore, the financial statements of the four 
Indian companies are more contemporaneous to our POI than is the 
financial statement of the Indonesian producer of pipe.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value the FOPs within 40 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by any other interested party less than ten 
days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of 
such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information. See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (Glycine from the PRC) at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Targeted Dumping

Targeted Dumping Allegations

    The statute allows the Department to employ an alternative dumping 
margin calculation methodology in an AD investigation under the 
following circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices (EP) 
or constructed export prices (CEP) for comparable merchandise that 
differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; and 
(2) the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into 
account using the standard average-to-average or transaction-to-
transaction methodology.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 3, 2012, the Department received petitioning firm 
Wheatland Tube's (Wheatland's) allegations of targeted dumping by 
Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA using the Department's targeted dumping 
test as established in Steel Nails from the UAE \29\ as clarified in 
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China.\30\ In 
its allegations, Wheatland asserted that there are patterns of U.S. 
sales prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among 
purchasers, time periods, and regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates: 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value, 
73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (Steel Nails from the UAE) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1-9; see 
also Proposed Methodology for Identifying and Analyzing Targeted 
Dumping in Antidumping Investigations; Request for Comment, 73 FR 
26371 (May 9, 2008).
    \30\ Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 
64318 (October 18, 2011) (Wood Flooring from the PRC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 11, 2012, Haiphong Hongyuan submitted comments on the 
allegation, arguing that Wheatland computation was flawed. In response, 
on April 17, 2012, Wheatland submitted a revised computation, arguing 
that the computation again showed there were patterns of U.S. sales 
prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among 
purchasers, time periods, and regions. On April 20 and May 9, 2012, 
Haiphong Hongyuan submitted comments on Wheatland's revised 
calculation, arguing that it constitutes a new allegation, and is 
therefore untimely, given that the deadline for the allegation was 
April 8, 2012. However, we regard Wheatland's April 16, 2012, 
submission as a revision to a timely-filed allegation, rather than a 
new, untimely allegation. Therefore, we have analyzed targeted dumping 
with respect to Haiphong Hongyuan in this preliminary determination 
based on Wheatland's April 16, 2012, submission. We have also analyzed 
targeted dumping in this investigation with respect to SeAH VINA based 
on petitioners' April 2, 2012, submission. On May 2 and May 11, 2012, 
SeAH VINA submitted comments on the targeted dumping allegation.

Targeted Dumping Test

    We conducted a targeted dumping analysis for Haiphong Hongyuan and 
SeAH VINA by time period, customer and region using the methodology we 
adopted in Steel Nails from the UAE and most recently articulated in 
Wood Flooring from the PRC. The methodology we employed involves a two-
stage test; the first stage addresses the pattern requirement and the 
second stage addresses the significant-difference requirement.\31\ In 
this test, we made all price comparisons on the basis of identical 
merchandise (i.e., by CONNUM). We based all of our targeted dumping 
calculations on the U.S. net price, which we determined for U.S. sales 
by Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA in our standard margin calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Steel Nails from the UAE, and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comments 3 and 6; and Wood Flooring from the 
PRC, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price Comparison Method

    The Department preliminarily has found a pattern of prices for 
comparable merchandise that differs significantly by

[[Page 32556]]

time period, customer, and region (i.e., targeted dumping). We 
determine preliminarily, however, that these price differences can be 
taken into account using the standard average-to-average methodology 
because both the standard and alternative methodologies yielded zero or 
de minimis margins for both respondents. Accordingly, for this 
preliminary determination we have applied the standard average-to-
average methodology to all U.S. sales reported by Haiphong Hongyuan and 
SeAH VINA.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Steel Nails from the UAE, 77 FR at 17031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single AD rate.\33\ 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.\34\ However, if the Department 
determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a ME 
country, then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine 
whether that company is independent from government control.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 
2008) (PET Film from the PRC).
    \34\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers from the PRC) as amplified by 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 from the PRC), and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
    \35\ See, e.g., PET Film from the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME investigations.\36\ The process requires 
exporters and producers to submit a separate rate status 
application.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72169.
    \37\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), (Policy 
Bulletin 05.1) available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. Policy Bulletin 
05.1 states, at 6: ``{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'' (emphasis 
added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Recipients

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    Three separate rate applicants in this investigation (Foreign-Owned 
SR Applicants), provided evidence that they are wholly owned by 
individuals or companies located in MEs in their separate rate 
applications.\38\ Therefore, because they are wholly foreign-owned and 
the Department has no evidence indicating that they are under the 
control of the government of Vietnam, a separate rates analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether these companies are independent from 
government control. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 1999) (determining that the respondent 
was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate). 
Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted a separate rate 
to these Foreign-Owned SR Applicants. See Preliminary Determination 
Margins section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Those companies were Haiphong Hongyuan, SeAH VINA, and Sun 
Steel Joint Stock Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Wholly Vietnamese-Owned Companies
    Because Hoa Phat and Huu Lien Asia (Huu Lien) have stated that they 
are wholly Vietnamese-owned companies, the Department must analyze 
whether these companies can demonstrate that they are sufficiently 
independent through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
    The evidence that Hoa Phat and Huu Lien provided supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on 
the following factors articulated in Sparklers from the PRC: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the existence of 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of Vietnamese 
companies; and (3) the implementation of formal measures by the 
government decentralizing control of Vietnamese companies, See Hoa 
Phat's February 1, 2012, submission at 2-4 and Huu Lien's March 21, 
2012, submission at 4-8.
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.\39\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determine that for Hoa Phat and Huu Lien the evidence on the 
record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of 
governmental control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each 
exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management. See Hoa Phat's February 1, 2012, submission at 4 through 10 
and Huu Lien's March 21, 2012, submission at 9-17.
    The evidence that Hoa Phat and Huu Lien placed on the record of 
this investigation demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto 
government control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of 
the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers from the PRC and Silicon Carbide from the PRC. 
As a result, we have preliminarily determined that it is appropriate to 
grant Hoa Phat and Huu Lien a margin

[[Page 32557]]

based on the experience of the investigated companies.

Calculation of Separate Rate

    Normally the separate rate is determined based on the estimated 
weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and 
producers individually investigated, excluding de minimis margins or 
margins based entirely on adverse facts available (AFA). See section 
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. However, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act 
provides that ``{i{time} f the estimated weighted average dumping 
margins established for all exporters and producers individually 
investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or are determined under 
section 776 {i.e., facts available{time} , the administering authority 
may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others 
rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated, 
including averaging the weighted average dumping margins determined for 
the exporters and producers individually examined.'' Additionally, the 
Department does not consider the use of an AFA rate in such an average 
to be an application of an adverse inference because the statute 
explicitly permits such averaging. Moreover, the Court of International 
Trade has upheld the Department's use of AFA and de minimis rates to 
determine a rate to be applied to uninvestigated companies.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Laizhou Auto Brake Equipment Co. v. United States, 
Court No. 06-00430, Slip Op. 08-71 (Ct. Int'l Trade, 2008) at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as an alternative to an average of the margins 
calculated for individually examined companies, we have calculated a 
separate rate using a simple average of the zero margins calculated for 
Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA, and the 27.96 percent petition rate. 
We preliminarily determine the rate for companies entitled to a 
separate rate as 9.32 percent. See the ``Application of Adverse Facts 
Available'' section, infra.

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department requested that all 
companies wishing to qualify for separate rate status in this 
investigation submit a separate rate status application. See Initiation 
Notice, 76 FR at 72169. The following three exporters submitted a 
timely response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, but did not 
provide a separate rate application: (1) Daiwa Lance International Co., 
Ltd.; (2) Hoa Sen Group; (3) Vietnam Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. (a/k/a 
Vinapipa), and therefore have not demonstrated their eligibility for 
separate rate status in this investigation. As a result, the Department 
is treating these Vietnamese exporters as part of the Vietnam-wide 
entity.

Application of Adverse Facts Available, Vietnam-Wide Entity and 
Vietnam-Wide Rate

    As stated above, we issued our request for Q&V information to ten 
potential Vietnamese producers/exporters of certain steel pipe. While 
information on the record of this investigation indicates that there 
are other producers/exporters of certain steel pipe in Vietnam, we 
received only six timely-filed solicited Q&V responses from companies 
to whom we sent a Q&A questionnaire. (In addition, as noted above, we 
also received two timely-filed, unsolicited Q&V responses, which we 
considered for respondent selection purposes.) Thus, although all 
producers/exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V 
information, not all producers/exporters did so.\41\ We have treated 
these Vietnamese producers/exporters who did not respond to the 
Department's Q&V letter as part of the Vietnam-wide entity because they 
do not qualify for a separate rate.\42\ For a detailed discussion, see 
the ``Separate Rate'' section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The following four companies were not responsive to the 
Department's request for Q&V information: Hyundai-Huy Hoang Pipe, 
Tianjin Lida Steel Pipe Group, Vietnam Germany Steel Pipe, and 
Vingal Industries Co., Ltd.
    \42\ See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 68232, 68236 (December 23, 2009) (PC 
Strand from the PRC) unchanged in Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 
Strand From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 28560 (May 21, 2010); see also 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 
(December 29, 2005), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, 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 AD statute, or 
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, 
the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use 
facts otherwise available (FA) in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
Vietnam-wide entity was unresponsive to the Department's requests for 
information. Specifically, as discussed above, certain companies did 
not respond to our questionnaires requesting Q&V information. As a 
result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the 
use of FA is appropriate to determine the Vietnam-wide rate.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See PC Strand from the PRC, 74 FR at 68236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\44\ We 
find that, because the Vietnam-wide entity did not respond to our 
requests for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in 
selecting from among the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Doc. 103-316, 870 
(1994) (SAA); 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When employing an adverse inference, section 776(b) of the Act 
indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from 
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from 
among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the 
margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory 
purposes of the AFA rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
\45\ As guided by the SAA, the information used as AFA should ensure an 
uncooperative party does not benefit by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.\46\ It is the Department's practice to select, as 
AFA, the higher of the: (a) Highest margin alleged in the petition; or 
(b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the

[[Page 32558]]

investigation.\47\ As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 
27.96 percent to the Vietnam-wide entity, the highest margin alleged in 
the petition, as corrected by the Department at our initiation of this 
investigation.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (August 
30, 2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \46\ See SAA at 870.
    \47\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged 
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
19690 (April 19, 2007).
    \48\ See Initiation Notice at 76 FR 72168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
upon secondary information, rather than information obtained in the 
course of the investigation, as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the 
merchandise subject to this investigation, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.'' 
\49\ To ``corroborate'' means the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. Independent 
sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. 
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information. The AFA rate the Department used is drawn from the 
petition, as adjusted to reflect Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Dorbest).\50\ To corroborate the AFA margin we 
have selected, we compared it to model-specific margins we found for 
the participating mandatory respondent SeAH VINA. We found the margin 
of 27.96 percent has probative value because it is in the range of the 
SeAH VINA's model-specific margins. Accordingly, we find the rate of 
27.96 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of 
the Act.\51\ The Vietnam-wide entity rate applies to all entries of 
certain steel pipe except for entries from Haiphong Hongyuan, SeAH 
VINA, and the three other producers/exporters receiving a separate 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008), quoting the SAA at 870.
    \50\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (Labor Methodologies).
    \51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ``{i{time} n identifying the date of 
sale of the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, 
the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business.'' Additionally, the Secretary may use a date other than the 
date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale.\52\ The Court of International Trade (the 
Court) has stated, ``a party seeking to establish a date of sale other 
than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to 
`satisfy' the Department that `a different date better reflects the 
date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms 
of sale.' '' \53\ The date of sale is generally the date on which the 
parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally 
includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. 
v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (Ct. Int'l. Trade 2001) 
(quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) (Allied Tube).
    \53\ See Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090-1092.
    \54\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Date of Sale, Comment 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA reported their dates of sale 
based on the date their U.S. affiliates issued an invoice to the 
unaffiliated U.S. customer. No information on the record demonstrates 
that any other date better reflected the date on which the material 
terms of sale were established. Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.401(i), the Department has preliminarily determined that the 
invoice date is the date that best reflects when the material terms of 
sale are set, and used it as the date of sale in this preliminary 
determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain steel pipe to the United 
States by Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA were made at LTFV, we 
compared CEP to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice. Specifically, we compared NV to 
weighted-average CEPs in accordance with section 777A (d)(1) of the 
Act.

U.S. Price

    Both Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA reported that all of their 
U.S. sales during the POI were CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act. We based CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States.
    Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for foreign movement expenses, international 
movement expenses, and U.S. movement expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We based movement expenses on either 
SVs if the expense was paid to an NME company in Vietnamese dong, or 
actual expenses if they were paid for in a market-economy currency. See 
``Memorandum from Fred Baker to the File, Re: Surrogate Values Used in 
the Preliminary Determination'' (SV Memorandum), dated concurrently 
with this notice for details regarding the SVs used for movement 
expenses.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted, 
where appropriate, those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States. We deducted, where 
appropriate, rebates, discounts, commissions, advertising expenses, 
credit expenses, warranty expenses, further processing, inventory 
carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. In addition, pursuant to 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment to the starting 
price for CEP profit.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP 
methodology because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal 
methodologies.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, in Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 
8, 2006).

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

[[Page 32559]]

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA reported for the POI. 
To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption 
rates by publicly available SVs, except for certain inputs for which 
the Department determined that usage of market-economy (ME) prices was 
warranted, as described below. In selecting the SVs, among other 
criteria, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity 
of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to 
the SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported 
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from 
the nearest seaport to the factory, where 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).\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ A detailed description of all SVs used can be found in the 
SV Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this preliminary determination, we used Indian import 
statistics to calculate SVs for the mandatory respondents' FOPs (direct 
materials, energy inputs, and packing materials). In selecting the best 
available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 
773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the 
extent practicable, SVs which are non-export average values, most 
contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based SVs, we have 
disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may 
be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of 
inputs from Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea may have been 
subsidized because we have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies.\58\ Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\59\ Further, guided 
by the legislative history, it is the Department's practice not to 
conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not 
subsidized.\60\ Rather, the Department bases its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. Additionally, consistent with our practice, we 
disregarded prices from NME countries and excluded imports labeled as 
originating from an ``unspecified'' country from the average value, 
because the Department could not be certain that they were not from 
either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\61\ 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in 
calculating the Indian import-based SVs or in calculating ME input 
values.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate 
from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 
45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
    \59\ See 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.
    \60\ See Conference Report, at 590; see also Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's 
Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 
2007).
    \61\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 
75301 (December 16, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 
10, 2005).
    \62\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SeAH VINA reported that certain of its raw material inputs were 
sourced from an ME country and paid for in an ME currency. When a 
respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities, 
we use the actual price paid by the respondent for those inputs, except 
when prices may have been distorted by dumping or subsidies.\63\ Where 
we found ME purchases to be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent 
or more), in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in 
Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,\64\ we used the 
actual purchases of these inputs to value the inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \64\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we valued certain of SeAH VINA's inputs using the ME 
prices paid for in an ME currency for the inputs where the total volume 
of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POR exceeded or 
was equal to 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from 
all sources during the period. Where ME purchases constituted less than 
33 percent of the total volume of input purchased, we weight-averaged 
the ME purchase prices with an appropriate SV. Where appropriate, we 
added freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of 
the actual values used for the ME inputs reported, see the SV 
Memorandum and the SeAH VINA Analysis Memo.
    Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that 
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita GNI and hourly 
manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), to value the 
respondent's cost of labor. However, on May 14, 2010, the Federal 
Circuit in Dorbest invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence 
of the Federal Circuit's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer 
relies on the regression-based wage rate methodology described in its 
regulations.
    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME AD proceedings.\65\ In Labor 
Methodologies, the Department explained that the best methodology to 
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the 
primary surrogate country.\66\ Additionally, the Department determined 
that the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 
6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor 
Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (Yearbook).\67\ The 
latest year for which ILO Chapter 6A reports national data for India is 
2005. The Department finds the two-digit description under Division 27 
(Manufacture of Basic Metals) of the ISIC-Revision 3 to be the best 
available information on the record because it is most specific to the 
industry being

[[Page 32560]]

examined, and is therefore derived from industries that produce 
comparable merchandise. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of the 
Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor data 
reported by India to the ILO under Division 27 of ISIC-Revision 3 
standard, in accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. A more 
detailed description of the labor rate calculation methodology is 
provided in the Preliminary Surrogate Value Memorandum. We find that 
this information constitutes the best available information on the 
record because it is the most contemporaneous data available for the 
POI and, thus, more accurately reflective of actual wages in India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Labor Methodologies.
    \66\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
    \67\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for the preliminary determination, we calculated the 
labor inputs using the data for average monthly industrial wages 
prevailing during 2005 in India, corresponding to ``Manufacturing'' 
economic sector. For the preliminary determination, the calculated 
industry-specific wage rate is 2.16 Rs./hour. Because the Indian 
financial statements on the record do not itemize the indirect costs 
reflected in Chapter 6A data, we find that the facts and information on 
the record do not warrant or permit an adjustment to the surrogate 
financial statements.\68\ A more detailed description of the wage rate 
calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Values Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See id. at 36094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we relied on the financial statements of Crimson 
Metal Engineering Company, Ltd., Rajasthan Tube Manufacturing Company, 
Ltd., APL Apollo Tubes Limited, and Nezone Tubes Limited, all Indian 
producers of identical or comparable merchandise.
    For further details regarding the calculation of the surrogate 
financial rations, see the Surrogate Values Memorandum.

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.\69\ All separate rates the 
Department now assigns to exporters will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the POI. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually-calculated separate 
rate, as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the 
average of rates applied in this investigation. This practice is 
referred to as the application of ``combination rates,'' because such 
rates apply to the specific combination of exporters and their 
supplying 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 POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72169; Policy Bulletin 
05.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
             Exporter                    Producer        average margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel VINA Corporation......  SeAH Steel VINA                  0.00
                                    Corporation.
Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan          Vietnam Haiphong                 0.00
 Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd.    Hongyuan Machinery
                                    Manufactory Co.,
                                    Ltd.
Sun Steel Joint Stock Company....  Sun Steel Joint                  9.32
                                    Stock Company.
Huu Lien Asia Corporation........  Huu Lien Asia                    9.32
                                    Corporation.
Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co...........  Hoa Phat Steel Pipe              9.32
                                    Co.
Vietnam-Wide Rate \70\...........  ...................             27.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Vietnam-Wide entity includes: Hyundai-Huy Hoang Pipe, 
Tianjin Lida Steel Pipe Group, Vietnam Germany Steel Pipe, and 
Vingal Industries Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain steel pipe from 
Vietnam as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Haiphong 
Hongyuan, SeAH VINA, the Separate-Rate Respondents, and the Vietnam-
wide entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Additionally, we will instruct CBP to require an AD 
cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the 
weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as 
indicated above.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Department has preliminarily determined in its 
concurrent countervailing duty investigation of circular welded pipe 
from Vietnam that subject merchandise exported by Haiphong Hongyuan 
benefitted from export subsidies.\72\ With respect to Haiphong 
Hongyuan, as it currently has a weighted-average dumping margin of 
zero, consideration of adjusting its cash deposit rate is moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final 
Countervailing Duty Determination with Antidumping Duty 
Determination, 77 FR 19211 (March 30, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For SeAH VINA, we will make no adjustment to its cash deposit rate 
as we found no countervailable export subsidies for the company in the 
CVD investigation. Id.
    For the remaining separate rate respondents not subject to 
individual investigation who are receiving the All Others rate in the 
CVD investigation, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping duty 
cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which the NV 
exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated above, reduced by the

[[Page 32561]]

lesser of the average export subsidy rates determined in the CVD 
investigation or the average of the CVD export subsidy rates applicable 
to the mandatory respondents upon which the separate rate dumping 
margins are based.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ In this case, the Department only found countervailable 
export subsidies of 8.06 percent applicable to Haiphong Hongyuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all other entries of circular welded pipe from Vietnam, the 
following cash deposit or bonding instructions apply: (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 Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 
their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the Vietnam-wide rate; 
and (3) for all non-Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have 
not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to Vietnam exporter/producer combination that supplied that 
non-Vietnam exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On May 18, 2012, Haiphong Hongyuan requested that in the event of 
an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (135 days after 
publication of the preliminary determination) and extend the 
application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a six-
month period. Also on May 18, 2012, SeAH VINA requested that the 
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days. On the same 
day, petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 
Wheatland Tube also requested that the Department postpone its final 
determination by 60 days. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary 
determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting producer/exporter 
accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are 
granting this request and are postponing the final determination until 
no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
accordingly. We are also granting the request to extend the application 
of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month 
period.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
Commission of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at 
LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the Commission 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 certain steel pipe, or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation, within 45 days of our final determination.

Public Comments

    Parties may submit case briefs or other written comments to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date on which the Department issues the final verification 
report in this proceeding. Parties may submit rebuttal briefs, limited 
to issues raised in case briefs, no later than five days after the 
deadline date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of contents, 
list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should 
accompany any briefs parties submit to the Department. Parties should 
limit this summary 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. 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, filed 
electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
The Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, must 
successfully receive in its entirety any electronically filed document 
by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (ET) 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, telephone number, the number of 
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If any party 
requests a hearing, we will inform parties of the scheduled date of the 
hearing, which we will hold at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 
351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and 
location of the hearing.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and 
tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (``O.D.'') 
not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, 
surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish 
(plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and 
coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for 
Testing and Materials International (``ASTM''), proprietary, or 
other) generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, 
sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may 
also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term 
``carbon quality'' includes products in which: (a) Iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; 
(b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (c) none 
of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as 
indicated:
    (i) 1.80 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) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;

[[Page 32562]]

    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
    Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, 
A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. 
Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and 
A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to 
proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. 
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to 
a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made 
to the ASTM A513 specification. Sprinkler pipe is designed for 
sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry 
specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications. 
These products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall 
thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or 
structural specification and to other specifications, such as 
American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is also 
covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the 
physical description set forth above, and also has 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 (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded 
and/or coupled end finish.
    The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) Pipe 
suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining 
furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) 
finished electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding; \74\ (d) tube 
and pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods 
produced to API specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API 
specifications; and (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-
drawn. However, products certified to ASTM mechanical tubing 
specifications are not excluded as mechanical tubing if they 
otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., outside diameter and wall 
thickness) of standard, structural, fence and sprinkler pipe. Also, 
products made to the following outside diameter and wall thickness 
combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for 
fence tubing, would not be excluded from the scope based solely on 
their being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Finished scaffolding is defined as component parts of a 
final, finished scaffolding that enters the United States 
unassembled as a ``kit.'' A ``kit'' is understood to mean a packaged 
combination of component parts that contain, at the time of 
importation, all the necessary component parts to fully assemble a 
final, finished scaffolding.

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall thickness (gage 20)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall thickness (gage 11)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall thickness (gage 10)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall thickness (gage 7)

    The pipe subject to this investigation is currently classifiable 
in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 
7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 
7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. However, 
the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is 
dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into the United 
States falls within the scope of the investigation.

[FR Doc. 2012-13227 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P