[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32562-32567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-852]


Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from India is 
being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value (LTFV) as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended (the Act). The estimated margin of sales at LTFV is listed 
in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian and 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) 482-1131 
and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 26, 2011, the Department received petitions concerning 
imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (certain steel 
pipe) from India, the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), the United Arab 
Emirates (UAE), and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) filed 
in proper form on behalf of Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, 
Wheatland Tube Company, and United States Steel Corporation 
(collectively, 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 (hereinafter, the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2011, the Department initiated the antidumping duty 
investigations on certain steel pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and 
Vietnam.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    We noted in the Initiation Notice that this investigation covers 
merchandise

[[Page 32563]]

manufactured and/or exported by Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd., 
which had been excluded from an existing antidumping duty order 
covering welded steel pipe and tube from India.\3\ In the Initiation 
Notice, we stated Petitioners had referred to Zenith Steel Pipes and 
Industries Ltd. and Zenith Birla (India) Limited interchangeably.\4\ 
See Initiation Notice at 72168. Zenith Birla (India) Limited appeared 
to be the current name for what was previously known as Zenith Steel 
Pipes and Industries, Ltd., and we indicated we intended to issue 
questionnaires to both of these named entities. See id. Because these 
companies are the sole companies subject to this investigation, the 
Department has not invoked the exception under section 777A(c)(2) of 
the Act, and the Department issued its questionnaire to Zenith Steel 
Pipes and Industries Ltd. and Zenith Birla (India) Limited on November 
22, 2011. Only Zenith Birla (India) Limited responded to our 
questionnaire (see ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' section, 
below), and nothing on the record of the investigation contradicts our 
original conclusion that Zenith Birla (India) Limited is the current 
name for the company formerly known as Zenith Steel Pipes and 
Industries, Ltd.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986).
    \4\ See Initiation Notice at 72168.
    \5\ Because the party filing responses referred to itself as 
Zenith Birla (India) Limited, henceforward we refer to the 
respondent as ``Zenith Birla.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Steel Vina Corp. (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 Investigation'' section of this notice, below. The 
Department also set aside a period of time for parties to comment on 
product characteristics for use in the antidumping 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. After reviewing all 
comments, we have adopted the product characteristics and hierarchy as 
explained in the preliminary determinations of concurrent antidumping 
investigations on certain steel pipe.
    On December 16, 2011, the International Trade Commission (ITC) 
published its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of certain steel pipe from India, 
Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam are materially injuring the U.S. industry, 
and the ITC notified the Department of its finding.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India, 
Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-
TA-482-485 and 731-TA-1191-1194 (Preliminary), 76 FR 78313 (December 
16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 8, 2012, petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit and JMC 
Steel Group, filed an allegation of sales below cost with respect to 
Zenith Birla. Those petitioners supplemented that allegation in a 
submission made February 9, 2012. On February 21, 2012, the Department 
initiated a cost investigation with respect to Zenith Birla. See the 
February 21, 2012, memorandum from The Team to Richard Weible entitled 
``The Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for 
Zenith Birla (India), Ltd.''
    On February 17, 2012, petitioner Wheatland Tube Corporation filed 
an allegation of targeted dumping by Zenith Birla. See the ``Allegation 
of Targeted Dumping'' section below.
    On February 29, 2012, petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit and JMC 
Steel Group requested that the Department postpone its preliminary 
determination by 50 days. In accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of 
the Act, we postponed our preliminary determination by 50 days.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 Determinations of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 15718 (March 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is October 1, 2010, through September 
30, 2011. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, October 
2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are circular welded 
carbon-quality steel pipe from India. 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

    As noted above, on December 5, 2011, SeAH VINA, a mandatory 
respondent in the concurrent AD and 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, the Republic of Korea, and 
Taiwan; and Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel 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.

[[Page 32564]]

    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 antidumping 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.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of facts 
otherwise available with an adverse inference is appropriate for the 
preliminary determination with respect to Zenith Birla.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under 
this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering 
authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 
782(d) of the Act provides that where the Department determines a 
response to a request for information does not comply with the request, 
the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and 
will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to 
remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the 
deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section 
782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the 
original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of 
the Act states further that the Department shall not decline to 
consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are 
met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) 
the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so 
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the 
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; (5) the information can be 
used without undue difficulties.
    The Department stated the following in a letter to Zenith Birla 
dated February 6, 2012: ``{t{time} he questionnaire responses submitted 
by Zenith Birla (India) Ltd. have been in some instances untimely 
filed, and submissions made have contained deficiencies. These 
deficiencies have included failure to explicitly justify requested 
proprietary treatment for certain information, insufficient public 
summaries of business proprietary information, and/or failure to 
certify the accuracy and service of certain submissions. In addition, 
many of the specific requests for information have gone unanswered, and 
in some instances the answers provided have been contradictory. The 
number and nature of these and other problems is so pervasive as to 
reflect a persistent pattern of obstruction of, and non-cooperation 
with, this investigation.'' We noted ``that further deficiencies of 
this nature may result in the rejection of such responses in their 
entirety, and may warrant the use of partial or total facts available, 
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, which may include adverse 
inferences, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.''
    Zenith Birla did not respond in a timely manner to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire dated February 21, 2012. In response to 
requests from Zenith Birla, the Department extended the original 
deadline for response to that questionnaire from March 6, 2012, to 
March 12, 2012, and from the latter to March 15, 2012. On March 15, 
2012, Zenith Birla requested an additional deadline extension, to March 
19, 2012, and the Department extended the deadline until 12:00 noon on 
March 16, 2012. Shortly before that deadline on March 16, 2012, Zenith 
Birla submitted a letter indicating it would submit its response in 
three parts: One part on time, one part after the deadline on March 16, 
2012, and one part by 9:00 a.m. on March 19, 2012. This letter 
requested that the deadlines for each of the latter two parts be 
extended by the Department to conform to this schedule. The Department 
did not extend the deadline, and none of Zenith Birla's response was 
filed on time. On March 19, 2012, the Department issued a letter to 
Zenith Birla indicating the Department was rejecting the untimely 
response and deleting it from the record. On March 19, 2012, the 
Department noted in a memorandum to the file that the documents in 
question should be rejected and deleted from the record. On April 9, 
2012, Zenith Birla submitted a letter claiming it was responding to the 
best of its ability, that the Department could not impose adverse 
inferences unless it could show the respondent failed to act to the 
best of its ability, and that the Department could not cease the 
questionnaire process unless it could demonstrate it lacked the time to 
complete the investigation within statutory deadlines.
    In this case, Zenith Birla did not respond to our request for 
information in a timely manner, withheld information the Department 
requested, and significantly impeded the proceeding. Zenith Birla's 
involvement in this investigation, when viewed in conjunction with the 
requirements of sections 782(c) and (d) of the Act and the instructions 
clearly articulated in the Department's questionnaire, show that Zenith 
Birla was afforded sufficient opportunities to provide the requested 
information, and, therefore, the Department was under no obligation to 
provide additional opportunities for Zenith Birla to provide this 
information after the multiple extensions already granted. Because 
Zenith Birla did not provide the requested information by the 
established deadline, its submissions do not satisfy the criteria of 
section 782(e) of the Act. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) 
of the Act, we are relying upon facts otherwise

[[Page 32565]]

available for Zenith Birla's antidumping duty margin.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party 
in selecting the facts otherwise available.\8\ In addition, the 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), 
explains that the Department may employ an adverse inference ``to 
ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \9\ 
Furthermore, affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products From 
Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000); Antidumping Duties, Countervailing 
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); and Nippon Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``While 
intentional conduct, such as deliberate concealment or inaccurate 
reporting, surely evinces a failure to cooperate, the statute does not 
contain an intent element.''). It is the Department's practice to 
consider, in employing adverse inferences, the extent to which a party 
may benefit from its own lack of cooperation. See Essar Steel Ltd. v. 
United States, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8621 at *18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 
2012) (Essar) (``Because Commerce lacks subpoena power, Commerce's 
ability to apply adverse facts is an important one. The purpose of the 
adverse facts statute is `to provide respondents with an incentive to 
cooperate' with Commerce's investigation, not to impose punitive 
damages.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India, 70 FR 54023, 
54025-26 (September 13, 2005), and 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, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002).
    \9\ See SAA at 870; and, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
From Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We provided Zenith Birla with notice informing it of the 
consequences of failure to respond properly to our antidumping 
questionnaires, including failure to respond in a timely manner. 
Nonetheless, Zenith Birla failed to provide a timely response to the 
February 21, 2012, supplemental questionnaire, despite the Department's 
multiple extensions of the deadline for filing the response. See Essar 
at *19 (``Without the ability to enforce full compliance with its 
questions, Commerce runs the risk of gamesmanship and lack of finality 
in its investigations.''). This failure indicates that Zenith Birla has 
not cooperated with our requests for information. See Nippon Steel 
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 
(``Compliance with the `best of its ability' standard is determined by 
assessing whether respondent has put forth its maximum effort to 
provide Commerce with full and complete answers to all inquiries in an 
investigation. While the standard does not require perfection and 
recognizes that mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone 
inattentiveness, carelessness, or inadequate record keeping.''). 
Moreover, ``{i{time} t is {respondent's{time}  burden to create an 
accurate record during Commerce's investigation.'' See Essar at *23 
(citing Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1583 (Fed. 
Cir. 1993)). Zenith Birla's failures have precluded the Department from 
performing the necessary analysis and verification of Zenith Birla's 
questionnaire responses required by section 782(i)(1) of the Act.
    For the reasons discussed, the Department has preliminarily 
determined that Zenith Birla has failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Poland, 
Indonesia, and Ukraine, 66 FR 8343, 8346 (January 30, 2001) 
(unchanged in Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Indonesia, Poland 
and Ukraine, 66 FR 18752, 18753 (April 11, 2001) Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 
Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan, 65 FR at 42986 (July 12, 
2000) (where the Department applied total adverse facts available 
(AFA) where respondents failed to respond to questionnaires in a 
timely manner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 868-
870. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is 
sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
fully cooperated. Normally, it is the Department's practice to use the 
highest rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent 
fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary 
information.\11\ The rates in the petition range from 22.88 percent to 
48.43 percent. See Initiation Notice at 72168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December 
27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 
70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information, rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the 
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under Section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See the SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. See id. The 
Department's regulations state that independent sources used to 
corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. 
See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also the SAA at 870. To corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).

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

[[Page 32566]]

    During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined evidence supporting 
the calculations in the Petition and the supplemental information 
provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to determine the probative 
value of the margins alleged in the Petition. During our pre-initiation 
analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price 
and normal value (NV) in the Petition, and the calculations used to 
derive the alleged margins, thereby corroborating key elements of the 
export price and NV calculations and establishing the basis for the 
estimated margins identified in the Initiation Notice. Petitioners' 
methodology for calculating the export price and NV in the Petition is 
discussed in the Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice at 72166-68. 
These calculations appear reasonable and no information on the record 
provides a basis for challenging the appropriateness of those estimated 
margins. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of 
the information underlying the calculation of margins in the petition 
by examining source documents as well as publicly available 
information, we preliminarily determine that the margins in the 
petition and in the Initiation Notice are reliable for the purposes of 
this investigation.
    Regarding the relevance of the rates in the petition and the 
Initiation Notice to Zenith Birla, the courts have acknowledged that 
the consideration of the commercial behavior inherent in the industry 
is important in determining the relevance of the selected AFA rate to 
the uncooperative respondent by virtue of it belonging to the same 
industry. See, e.g., Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 
1310, 1334 (1999). Because the petition rates are derived from the same 
industry and are based either on information related to Zenith Birla 
itself or on aggregate data involving the same industry, we have 
determined the petition rates to be relevant. In corroborating the 
petition rates, we examined the prices submitted by Zenith Birla in its 
questionnaire response. While we note these data cannot be relied upon 
to calculate a margin for the reasons discussed in detail above, we 
note that Zenith Birla's own reported prices corroborate the prices 
used in the petition. See the May 23, 2012, analysis memorandum from 
Steve Bezirganian through Robert James to the File. Consistent with our 
practice of using the highest rate when AFA is warranted, we are using 
the higher of the petition and Initiation Notice rates, 48.43 percent, 
as the rate for Zenith Birla.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain steel pipe from India 
manufactured and/or exported by Zenith Birla that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct 
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
weighted-average margin, as indicated below, as follows: (1) The rate 
for Zenith Birla will be the rate we have determined in this 
preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified 
in this investigation but the manufacturer is Zenith Birla, the rate 
will be the rate established for Zenith Birla. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 
Note that no ``all others'' deposit rate is required, because Zenith 
Birla is the only manufacturer covered by the investigation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Weighted-average
              Manufacturer/exporter                   margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith Birla (India) Limited (previously known as                 48.43
 Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd.).........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

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

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the 
Department no later than thirty days after the publication of this 
preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is 
limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within 
five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and 
an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request 
that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the 
Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on 
diskette.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold 
a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on issues raised in case briefs, provided that 
such a hearing is requested by an interested party. See also 19 CFR 
351.310. If a timely request for a hearing is made in this 
investigation, we intend to hold the hearing two days after the 
deadline for filing a rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled date.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Hearing requests 
should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is 
made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to 
be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 32567]]


    Dated: May 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Scope of the India AD Investigation

    At the time of the filing of the petition for this case, there 
was an existing antidumping duty order on welded steel pipe and tube 
From India. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986). 
Therefore, the scope of this investigation covers merchandise 
manufactured and/or exported by Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries 
Ltd., and any successors-in-interest to that company, which is the 
only company excluded from the 1986 order known to exist.
    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;
    (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 (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.
    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; \13\ (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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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. 2012-13235 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P