[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32508-32513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13231]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-501]


Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey: Notice 
of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by interested parties, the Department 
of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and 
tubes (``welded pipe and tube'') from Turkey.\1\ This review covers 
four respondents: Borusan, Erbosan, Toscelik, and Yucel.\2\ The 
Department found that Erbosan and Yucel had no reviewable entries.\3\ 
We preliminarily determine that neither Borusan nor Toscelik made sales 
below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to 
antidumping duties. The preliminary results are listed below in the 
section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
37781 (June 28, 2011) (``Review Initiation'').
    \2\ The Department initiated a review on the Borusan Group, 
which includes Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., 
Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic., Borusan Istikbal 
Ticaret T.A.S., Boruson Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S., Borusan Ihracat 
Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S., Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim A.S., and Tubeco 
Pipe and Steel Corporation (collectively, ``Borusan''); ERBOSAN 
Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (``Erbosan''); Toscelik Profil 
ve Sac Endustrisi A.S., Toscelik Metal Ticaret A.S., Tosyali Dis 
Ticaret A.S. (collectively, ``Toscelik''); the Yucel Group and all 
affiliates, Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S., Yucelboru Ihracat 
Ithalat ve Pazarlama A.S., and Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. 
(collectively, ``Yucel.'').
    \3\ See Memo from Christian Marsh to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 
entitled ``Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey (Period of 
Review: May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011): Whether Entries Are 
Reviewable for ERBOSAN Erciyas BoruSanayi ve Ticaret A.S.,'' dated 
September 20, 2011; memo from Christian Marsh to Ronald K. 
Lorentzen, entitled ``Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey 
(Period of Review: May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011): Whether the 
Yucel Group's Entry Is Properly Classified and Subject to Review,'' 
dated October 17, 2011.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett or Victoria Cho, 
at (202) 482-4161 or (202) 482-5075, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) covered by this review is May 1, 2010, 
through April 30, 2011.

Background

    On May 15, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on welded pipe and tube from Turkey.\4\ On 
May 2, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this order.\5\ On May 27, 2011, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Toscelik self-requested a 
review.\6\ On May 31, 2011, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), 
Borusan and Erbosan each self-requested a review. On the same date, 
domestic interested party U.S. Steel Corporation (``U.S. Steel'') 
requested reviews of Borusan, Toscelik, and Yucel, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(b)(4).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard 
Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey, 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986) 
(``Antidumping Duty Order'').
    \5\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 24460 (May 2, 2011).
    \6\ See Letter from Toscelik to the Department dated May 27, 
2011.
    \7\ See Letters from Borusan, Erbosan, and U.S. Steel to the 
Department dated May 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2011, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded pipe 
and tube from Turkey, covering the POR of May 1, 2010, through April 
30, 2011. See Review Initiation, 76 FR 37781.
    On August 5, 2011, the Department sent antidumping duty 
administrative review questionnaires to Borusan and Toscelik.\8\ We 
received Borusan's and Toscelik's Sections A-D questionnaire response 
in September 2011.\9\ We issued

[[Page 32509]]

supplemental section A, B, C, and D questionnaires, to which Borusan 
and Toscelik responded during December 2011 and January, February, 
March, and April 2012.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The questionnaire consists of sections A (general 
information), B (sales in the home market or to third countries), C 
(sales to the United States), D (cost of production/constructed 
value), and E (cost of further manufacturing or assembly performed 
in the United States). See Letters to Toscelik and Borusan from the 
Department dated August 5, 2011.
    \9\ See Letter from Toscelik to the Department entitled ``Welded 
Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey; 
Tos[ccedil]elik Sec.  A-D response,'' dated September 26, 2011 
(``Toscelik QR A-D''); Letter from Borusan to the Department 
entitled ``Section A-D Response of Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve 
Ticaret A.S. in the 2010-2011 Antidumping Administrative Review 
Involving Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey,'' 
dated September 26, 2011 (``Borusan QR A-D'').
    \10\ See Letters from Toscelik to the Department, 
entitled:``Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From 
Turkey; Tos[ccedil]elik Sec.  A-C supplemental response,'' dated 
January 27, 2012; ``Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube 
Products From Turkey; Tos[ccedil]elik Sec.  D supplemental 
response,'' dated April 2, 2012; and ``Welded Carbon Steel Standard 
Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey; Tos[ccedil]elik second Sec.  D 
supplemental response,'' dated April 16, 2012. See, also, Letters 
from Borusan to the Department, entitled: ``Supplemental Section A-C 
Response of Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S in the 
2010-2011 Antidumping Administrative Review Involving Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey,'' dated January 5, 2012; 
``Supplemental Section A-C Response of Borusan Mannesmann Boru 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S in the 2010-2011 Antidumping Administrative 
Review Involving Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from 
Turkey,'' dated March 13, 2012; ``Second Supplemental Section A-C 
Response of Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. in the 
2010-2011 Antidumping Administrative Review Involving Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from Turkey,'' dated April 9, 2012; and 
``Second Supplemental Section D Response of Borusan Mannesmann Boru 
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. in the 2010-2011 Antidumping Administrative 
Review Involving Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe from 
Turkey,'' dated May 7, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In U.S. Steel's request for review of Borusan, U.S. Steel listed 
Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalari San ve Tic. (``Borusan BBF''), 
Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. (``Borusan ITT''), Boruson Gemlik Boru 
Tesisleri A.S. (``Borusan GBT''), Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim 
A.S. (``Borusan IID''), Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim A.S. (``Borusan 
ID''), and Tubeco Pipe and Steel (``Tubeco'') as members of the Borusan 
Group. The Department finds that Borusan BBF, Borusan ITT, Boruson GBT, 
Borusan IID, BorusanID, and Tubeco are no longer in existence.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Borusan's January 5, 2012, supplemental questionnaire 
response at pages 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 18, 2012, the Department extended the time period for 
issuing the preliminary results of the administrative review from 
January 31, 2012, to May 31, 2012.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 77 FR 2511 (January 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination of No Reviewable Entries

    On September 30, 2011, the Department determined that Erbosan had 
no reviewable entries during the POR.\13\ On October 17, 2011, the 
Department determined that Yucel had no entries subject to review 
during the POR.\14\ Therefore, based on the record evidence, we 
preliminarily determine that these respondents had no reviewable 
entries during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
entitled ``Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey (Period of 
Review: May 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011): Whether Entries Are 
Reviewable for ERBOSAN Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.,'' dated 
September 30, 2011.
    \14\ See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
entitled ``Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey (Period of 
Review: May 1,2010, through April 30, 2011): Whether the Yucel 
Group's Entry Is Properly Classified and Subject to Review,'' dated 
October 17, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, consistent with our practice, we find it appropriate to 
complete the review and to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 
concerning entries for Erbosan and Yucel following the final results of 
the review.\15\ If we continue to find that Erbosan and Yucel had no 
reviewable entries of subject merchandise in the final results, we will 
instruct CBP to liquidate any existing unliquidated entries of 
merchandise produced and/or exported by Erbosan and Yucel at the all-
others rate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Preliminary No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 79651, 79651-52 
(December 22, 2011), unchanged in Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final No Shipment Determination, 77 FR 
24459, 24460 (April 24, 2012); see also Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
    \16\ See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order include 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, or galvanized, painted), or end 
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and 
tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be 
called structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. 
Standard pipes and tubes are intended for the low pressure conveyance 
of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in 
plumbing and heating systems, air conditioner units, automatic 
sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be 
used for light load-bearing and mechanical applications, such as for 
fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as conduit 
shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or 
those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard 
pipe applications. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outlined above are included in the scope of this order, 
except for line pipe, oil country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.
    Imports of these products 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 proceeding is 
dispositive.

Targeted Dumping

    U.S. Steel notes that it conducted its own targeted dumping 
analysis of Toscelik's and Borusan's U.S. sales using the Department's 
targeted dumping methodology as applied in Steel Nails and modified in 
Wood Flooring.\17\ Based on its own analysis, U.S. Steel argues the 
Department should conduct a targeted dumping analysis and employ 
average-to-transaction comparisons without offsets should the 
Department find that the record supports its allegation of targeted 
dumping.\18\ Borusan argues that U.S. Steel's arguments are untimely 
and that if the Department acts on the allegation, it should 
investigate whether movements in the cost of hot-rolled coil account 
for differences in Borusan's pricing of the subject merchandise over 
time.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See U.S. Steel Corporation's Allegation of Targeted Dumping 
with respect to Toscelik, dated May 9, 2012, at 1-8, and U.S. Steel 
Corporation's Allegation of Targeted Dumping with respect to 
Borusan, dated May 14, 2012, at 1-8, both (citing Certain Steel 
Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33,977 (June 16, 2008), and 
accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 8 (``Steel 
Nails''); Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 
64318 (Oct. 18, 2011), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4 (``Wood Flooring'')).
    \18\ See id. at 5-8.
    \19\ See Borusan's letter to the Department, entitled 
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe from Turkey for the Period 5/01/10-4/30/11; 
Response to Targeted Dumping Allegations,'' dated May 17, 2012.

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

[[Page 32510]]

    For purposes of these preliminary results, the Department did not 
conduct a targeted dumping analysis. In calculating the preliminary 
weighted-average dumping margin, the Department applied the calculation 
methodology adopted in the Final Modification for Reviews.\20\ In 
particular, the Department compared monthly, weighted-average export 
prices with monthly, weighted-average normal values, and granted 
offsets for negative comparison results in the calculation of the 
weighted-average dumping margins.\21\ Application of this methodology 
in these preliminary results affords parties an opportunity to 
meaningfully comment on the Department's implementation of this 
recently adopted methodology in the context of this administrative 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) 
(``Final Modification for Reviews'').
    \21\ See id. at 8102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparison

    We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and 
Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), we first 
attempted to match contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United 
States and comparison market that were identical with respect to the 
following characteristics: (1) Grade; (2) nominal pipe size; (3) wall 
thickness; (4) surface finish; and (5) end finish. When there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare with U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most similar merchandise based 
on the characteristics listed above in order of priority listed.

Export Price

    Because Borusan and Toscelik sold subject merchandise directly to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') methodology was not 
otherwise warranted based on the record facts of this review, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used export price 
(``EP'') as the basis for all of Borusan and Toscelik's sales.
    We calculated EP using, as the starting price, the packed, 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made the following 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), where 
appropriate: foreign inland freight from the mill to port, foreign 
brokerage and handling, and international freight.
    In addition, Borusan reported an amount for duty drawback which 
represents the amount of duties on imported raw materials associated 
with a particular shipment of subject merchandise to the United States 
that is exempted upon export. Borusan requested that we add the amount 
to the starting price.\22\ To determine if a duty drawback adjustment 
is warranted, the Department has employed a two-prong test which 
determines whether: (1) The rebate and import duties are dependent upon 
one another, or in the context of an exemption from import duties, if 
the exemption is linked to the exportation of the subject merchandise; 
and (2) the respondent has demonstrated that there are sufficient 
imports of the raw material to account for the duty drawback on the 
exports of the subject merchandise.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Borusan's QR A-D at page C-35.
    \23\ See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 29 C.I.T. 
502, 506 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005). See also Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Notice of 
Intent To Revoke in Part, 72 FR 25253, 25256 (May 4, 2007), 
unchanged in Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 
Shipper Review and Determination To Revoke in Part, 72 FR 62630 
(November 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After analyzing the facts on the record of this case, we find that 
Borusan has adequately demonstrated that import duties for raw 
materials and rebates granted on exports are linked under the 
Government of Turkey's duty drawback scheme.\24\ Additionally, Borusan 
has provided evidence that its imports of hot-rolled coil are 
sufficient to account for the duty drawback claimed on the export of 
subject merchandise.\25\ Therefore, consistent with our determination 
in the 2009-2010 administrative review, we are granting Borusan a duty 
drawback adjustment for purposes of the preliminary results.\26\ 
Toscelik did not report an amount for duty drawback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Borusan's QR A-D at Exhibit C-8.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; 
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 33204 (June 8, 2011), unchanged in Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76939 (December 9, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
comparison market, i.e., Turkey, to serve as a viable basis for 
calculating NV, we compared Borusan's and Toscelik's home market sales 
volumes of the foreign like product to their U.S. sales volume of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. 
For each company, the aggregate home market sales volume of the foreign 
like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. sales volume of 
the subject merchandise.\27\ Therefore, we determine that the home 
market was viable for comparison purposes for Borusan and Toscelik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Borusan QR A-D at page 3; Toscelik QR A-D at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's Length Test

    We included in our analysis Borusan's and Toscelik's home market 
sales to affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales 
were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to prices 
at which Borusan and Toscelik sold identical merchandise to their 
unaffiliated customers. To test whether the sales to affiliates were 
made at arm's-length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales 
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, 
direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the prices to 
that affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 
percent of the prices of comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated 
parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were 
at arm's-length.\28\ Conversely, where we found that the sales to an 
affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, then all sales to 
that affiliated party have been excluded from the dumping analysis.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 19 CFR 351.403(c); Notice of Preliminary Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Ninth 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta 
From Italy, 71 FR 45017, 45020 (August 8, 2006) (``Certain Pasta 
From Italy''), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of the Ninth 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta 
From Italy, 72 FR 7011 (February 14, 2007); see also Memorandum from 
Christopher Hargett to the File, ``Analysis Memorandum for Toscelik 
Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S.'' (``Toscelik's Sales Calculation 
Memo''), and Memorandum from Christopher Hargett to the File, 
``Analysis Memorandum for the Borusan Group'' (``Borusan's Sales 
Calculation Memo'') both dated concurrent with this notice.
    \29\ See Certain Pasta From Italy, 71 FR at 45020; see also 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary 
Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002).

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

[[Page 32511]]

C. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 
determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level 
of trade (``LOT'') as the EP sales.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether EP sales and 
NV sales were at different LOTs, we examined stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. If the 
comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the differences 
affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between sales at different LOTs in the country in 
which NV is determined, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    We did not make an LOT adjustment under 19 CFR 351.412(e) because 
there was only one home market LOT for each respondent and we were 
unable to identify a pattern of consistent price differences 
attributable to differences in LOTs. See 19 CFR 351.412(d).
    For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of 
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see 
Toscelik's Sales Calculation Memo and Borusan's Sales Calculation Memo.

D. Cost of Production Analysis

    The Department disregarded sales below the cost of production 
(``COP'') in the last completed review in which Borusan and Toscelik 
participated.\30\ Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
Borusan and Toscelik made sales of the subject merchandise in their 
comparison market at prices below the COP in the current review period. 
Thus, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP 
investigation of sales by Borusan and Toscelik. We examined the cost 
data for Borusan and Toscelik and determined that our quarterly cost 
methodology is not warranted and, therefore, we have applied our 
standard methodology of using annual costs based on the reported data, 
adjusted as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey; 
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 33204, 33208 (June 8, 2011), unchanged in Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76939 
(December 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a sales-below-
cost analysis of Borusan and Toscelik pursuant to section 773(b) of the 
Act to determine whether Borusan's and Toscelik's comparison market 
sales were made at prices below the COP. We compared sales of the 
foreign like product in the home market with model-specific COP 
figures. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated 
COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, financial expenses, 
and all costs incidental to placing the foreign like product in packed 
condition and ready for shipment.
    In our sales-below-cost analysis, we relied on the COP information 
provided by Borusan and Toscelik in their questionnaire responses.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Toscelik's Sales Calculation Memo and Borusan's Sales 
Calculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
    In determining whether to disregard Borusan's and Toscelik's home 
market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, within an 
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the 
normal course of trade. As noted in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 
prices are considered to provide for recovery of costs if such prices 
are above the weighted-average per-unit COP for the period of 
investigation or review. We determined the net comparison market prices 
for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling 
expenses, and packing expenses.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Toscelik's Sales Calculation Memo and Borusan's Sales 
Calculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Results of COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, 
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales because: (1) They were made within an extended period 
of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our comparison of POR 
prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they were at prices 
which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    Our cost test for Toscelik and Borusan revealed that, for home 
market sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales of 
those models were made at prices below the COP. Therefore, we retained 
all such sales in our analysis and included them in determining NV. Our 
cost test for Toscelik and Borusan also indicated that for home market 
sales of other models, more than 20 percent were sold at prices below 
the COP within an extended period of time and were at prices which 
would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
excluded these below cost sales from our analysis and used the 
remaining above-cost sales to determine NV.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Toscelik's Sales Calculation Memo and Borusan's Sales 
Calculation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices

    For Borusan and Toscelik, for those comparison products for which 
there were sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on home market 
prices. In these preliminary results, we were able to match all U.S. 
sales to contemporaneous sales, made in the ordinary course of trade, 
with sales of either an identical or a similar foreign like product, 
based on matching characteristics. We calculated NV based on ex-works 
or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers, or prices to affiliated 
customers which were determined to be at arm's length (see discussion 
above regarding these sales). We made adjustments, where appropriate, 
from the starting price for billing adjustments, discounts, rebates, 
and inland freight. Additionally, we added interest revenue, capped at 
the amount of the corresponding credit expense.\34\ In accordance with 
section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 40167 (August 11, 
2009), and accompanying Issues & Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we 
adjusted for differences in the circumstances of

[[Page 32512]]

sale. These circumstances included differences in imputed credit 
expenses and other direct selling expenses, such as the expense related 
to bank charges and factoring. We also made adjustments, where 
appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    For a detailed description of our calculation of NV based on 
comparison market prices, see Toscelik's Sales Calculation Memo and 
Borusan's Sales Calculation Memo.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made 
currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow 
Jones Business Information Services (Factiva).
    Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, 
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is the 
Department's practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily 
exchange rate differs from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The 
benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the 
past 40 business days. When we determine that a fluctuation exists, we 
generally utilize the benchmark rate instead of the daily rate, in 
accordance with established practice. We did not find that a 
fluctuation existed during the POR for this administrative review, and, 
therefore, we used the daily exchange rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period May 1, 
2010, through April 30, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                       dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borusan....................................................        0.00
Toscelik...................................................        0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Comments and Hearing

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, 
may be filed no later than 5 days after the time limit for filing the 
case briefs. 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, 
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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, 
filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA 
ACCESS''). An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the Department by 5 p.m. Eastern 
Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of 
issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to 
those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days 
from publication of this notice, in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless the time limit is extended.

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to section 751(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department calculated importer-
specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the examined sales for that importer. See 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer. See id. Where the importer-specific rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Department 
intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date 
of publication of the final results of review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
period of review produced by companies included in these preliminary 
results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their 
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others 
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in 
the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of 
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
welded pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Borusan 
and Toscelik will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review (except, if the rates are zero or de minimis, then zero cash 
deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 
any previous review or the LTFV investigation conducted by the 
Department, the cash deposit rate will be 14.74 percent, the ``All 
Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.\35\ These cash 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR at 17784.

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

[[Page 32513]]

Notification To Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
and/or increase the antidumping duty by the amount of the 
countervailing duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 24, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-13231 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P