[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55186-55191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-836]


Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests for an administrative review by two 
respondent parties, Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) and 
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. (Regiopytsa), the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe 
and tube (LWR pipe and tube) from Mexico. For these preliminary 
results, we have found that neither company sold subject merchandise at 
less than normal value during the period of review, which covers August 
1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP).

DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland (Maquilacero) or Edythe 
Artman (Regiopytsa), 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) 482-3362 or (202) 482-3931, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the order on LWR pipe and tube from Mexico on 
August 1, 2011.\1\ Two respondents, Maquilacero and Regiopytsa, 
requested a review of their own entries of subject merchandise for the 
period of review. Hence, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of the review on October 3, 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 45773 (August 1, 2011).
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
61076 (October 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both Maquilacero and Regiopytsa submitted responses to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire and responses to subsequent 
requests for additional information. The petitioner filed no comments 
on these responses.

Extension of Preliminary Results

    On May 10, 2012, the Department published a notice extending the 
time limit for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120 
days.\3\ The extension notice established the deadline of August 30, 
2012, for these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico; 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 77 FR 27424 (May 10, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The period of review is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011.

[[Page 55187]]

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise that is the subject of the order is certain welded 
carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular 
(including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 
4 mm.
    The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy 
steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. 
Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none 
of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight 
respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of 
silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 
1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 
lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 
percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent 
vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-
quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the 
scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to 
the order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 
7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Affiliated Respondents

    Under section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), if one party owns, directly or indirectly, five percent or more 
of another party, such parties are considered to be affiliated for 
purposes of the antidumping law. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.403, the Department may require a respondent to report the 
downstream sales of its affiliated customer to the first unaffiliated 
customer if: (1) The respondent's sales to all affiliated customers 
account for five percent or more of the respondent's total sales of 
foreign-like product in the comparison market, and (2) those sales to 
the affiliated customer are determined to have not been made at arm's-
length.
    In past segments of this proceeding, the Department found that 
Maquilacero should report the downstream sales of an affiliated home-
market customer pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act.\4\ But, 
although Maquilacero reported its sales to the affiliated reseller to 
constitute more than five-percent of Maquilacero's total home-market 
sales during the period of the current review, we also found that the 
sales were made at arm's-length and, thus, we did not request that 
Maquilacero submit its affiliate's downstream sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From 
Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 55559 (September 13, 2010), unchanged in Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 9547 (February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regiopytsa also reported sales to an affiliated home-market 
reseller during the period of review but, as the value of the sales 
constituted less than five percent of Regiopytsa's total home-market 
sales during the period, we did not request that Regiopytsa report the 
downstream sales of this affiliate.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine if sales of subject merchandise were made in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), we compared the price of 
U.S. sales to normal value, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. For these preliminary 
results, the Department applied the methodology for calculation of a 
weighted-average dumping margin recently adopted in Antidumping 
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final 
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for 
Reviews). In particular, we compared monthly weighted-average U.S. 
prices with monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets 
for any non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-
average dumping margin.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' 
section above and that were produced by Maquilacero and Regiopytsa and 
sold in the home market during the period of review, to be foreign like 
product for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
subject merchandise sold in the United States. We relied on the 
following six product characteristics to identify identical subject 
merchandise and foreign like product: (1) Steel input type; (2) whether 
the product was metallic-coated or not; (3) whether the product was 
painted or not; (4) product perimeter; (5) wall thickness; and (6) 
shape. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market to compare to subject merchandise sold in the United States, we 
compared the U.S. sales to home-market sales of the most-similar, 
foreign like product on the basis of the reported product 
characteristics and instructions provided in our antidumping 
questionnaire.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and to the 
extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales made in 
the home market at the same level of trade as the export price or the 
constructed export price. The normal-value level of trade is based on 
the starting prices of sales in the home market or, when normal value 
is based on constructed value, those of the sales from which we derived 
selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit. See also 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). For export price, the level of trade is based 
on the starting price, which is usually the price from the exporter to 
the importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, both 
Maquilacero and Regiopytsa reported only export-price sales to the 
United States.
    To determine if home-market sales are made at a different level of 
trade than export-price sales, we examine stages in the marketing 
process and the selling functions performed along the chain of 
distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 
CFR 351.412(c)(2). If home-market sales are at a different level of 
trade, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences 
between the sales on which normal value is based and home-market sales 
made at the level of trade of the export transaction and this 
difference affects price comparability, then we make a level-of-trade 
adjustment to normal value under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.412.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From 
the Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 32531 
(June 1, 2012), citing Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maquilacero

    In response to section A of the antidumping questionnaire and in 
supplemental responses to the questionnaire, Maquilacero reported one 
level of trade with one channel of distribution for its export-price 
sales. Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed by 
Maquilacero on its sales to the United States, we

[[Page 55188]]

determined that the sales were made at one level of trade.
    For the home market, Maquilacero identified two channels of 
distribution in its section A response as follows: (1) Direct sales 
made by Maquilacero, and (2) indirect sales made by its affiliated 
reseller to the first unaffiliated customer. Maquilacero reported that 
the sales in both channels were made at one level of trade. Based on 
our analysis of all of Maquilacero's home-market selling functions, we 
found that the sales made in both channels of distribution were made at 
one level of trade, the normal-value level of trade.
    We then compared the selling functions performed for the sales at 
the normal-value level of trade to those performed for sales at the 
export-price level of trade. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily 
determined that the starting price of Maquilacero's home-market sales 
and its export price represented different stages in the marketing 
process and were thus at different levels of trade. However, because 
Maquilacero only sold at one level of trade in the home market, there 
is no basis on which to determine if there was a pattern of consistent 
price differences between two levels of trade in that market. 
Furthermore, there is no other record evidence on which to base a 
level-of-trade adjustment. Therefore, although the normal-value level 
of trade differed from the export-price level of trade, we are unable 
to make a level-of-trade adjustment to normal value for Maquilacero.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a more detailed discussion of this analysis, see the 
``Level of Trade'' section in the Memorandum to the File for 
``Analysis of Data Submitted by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. 
(Maquilacero) for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube (LWR 
pipe and tube) from Mexico,'' dated August 30, 2012 (Maquilacero 
Preliminary Analysis Memo), at 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regiopytsa

    In its initial and supplemental responses to section A, Regiopytsa 
reported one channel of distribution for its home-market sales made to 
two types of customers (i.e., distributors and end-users). For all 
sales made through the affiliated reseller in the home market, 
Regiopytsa reported that the merchandise was resold to unaffiliated 
customers. Regiopytsa reported a single level of trade in its home 
market sales database. Based on our analysis of Regiopytsa's home-
market selling functions, we preliminary found that the selling 
functions for the reported channel of distribution constituted one 
level of trade in the home market, or the normal-value level of trade.
    In the U.S. market, Regiopytsa reported one level of trade for 
which there was one channel of distribution to two types of customers 
(i.e., distributors and steel service centers). It reported a single 
level of trade in its U.S. sales database. Based on our analysis of the 
selling functions Regiopytsa performed for its export-price sales, we 
determined that there was one level of trade for its U.S. sales.
    Next we compared the selling functions associated with the sales at 
the normal-value level of trade to those associated with the export-
price level of trade and, based on our analysis of record evidence, we 
found that the degree and number of selling functions provided by 
Regiopytsa for its customers in the home market was greater than the 
degree to which it provided some of those selling functions to U.S. 
customers. However, as with Maquilacero, we were unable to calculate a 
level-of-trade adjustment because we found only one level of trade in 
Regiopytsa's home market and there is no other record evidence on which 
to base an adjustment. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we 
matched the export-price sales to home-market sales without making a 
level-of-trade adjustment to normal value.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For further discussion 
of this analysis, see the ``Level of Trade'' section in the 
Memorandum to the File for ``Analysis of Data Submitted by 
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,'' dated August 30, 
2012 (Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo), at 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the 
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the 
invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms 
of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For Maquilacero and 
Regiopytsa, we found that the invoice date best reflected the date on 
which material terms of sales were established with one exception. 
Regiopytsa reported that it had some home-market sales for which the 
invoice and shipment dates did not coincide. Based on our analysis of 
the factual circumstances of these sales, we found that the material 
terms of sale were in fact subject to change up until the time the 
merchandise was released for shipment. Thus, for these preliminary 
results, we determined that the most appropriate date of sale for these 
sales was the date of shipment, as discussed in the ``Date of Sale'' 
section of Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo at 5.

U.S. Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price as ``the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).''
    For purposes of these preliminary results, we calculated the U.S. 
price as the export price for Maquilacero and Regiopytsa in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior 
to importation by the producer, outside of the United States to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For each company, we 
calculated export price based on the packed price that was charged to 
the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We made deductions for movement 
expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act, including deductions for foreign inland freight (plant/
warehouse to the border), U.S. inland freight (border to the 
unaffiliated customer), country of manufacture inland insurance, and 
brokerage and handling. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, 
for imputed credit, certain direct selling expenses (including 
commissions), and billing adjustments.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Home Market

    To determine if there was a sufficient volume of sales of LWR pipe 
and tube in the home market during the period of review to serve as a 
viable basis for calculating normal value, we compared Maquilacero and 
Regiopytsa's quantity of home-market sales of the foreign like product 
to the quantity of each company's respective U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Because both 
Maquilacero and Regiopytsa's aggregate quantity of home-market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of their 
aggregate quantity of U.S. sales for subject merchandise, we determined 
that the home market was viable for comparison purposes for both 
companies, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    Sales to affiliated customers in the home market that were not made 
at

[[Page 55189]]

arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we consider 
them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See section 773(f)(2) 
of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.102(b). Consistent with 19 CFR 
351.403(c) and (d) and agency practice, ``the Department may calculate 
normal value based on sales to affiliates if satisfied that the 
transactions were made at arm's-length.'' See China Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1365 (CIT 2003). To test whether 
the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared, 
on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers, net of all direct selling expenses, billing 
adjustments, discounts, rebates, movement charges and packing. Where 
prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98 
to 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to 
the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the 
affiliated party were at arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings: 
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 
69194 (November 15, 2002). Based on this analysis, Maquilacero's sales 
through its affiliated reseller were made at arm's length but those 
made by Regiopytsa through its affiliated reseller and to other 
affiliated customers were not. Therefore, in our margin calculations, 
we included Maquilacero's sales to its affiliate but excluded 
Regiopytsa's sales to its affiliates.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Both respondents have had home-market sales disregarded in prior 
reviews on the basis that they had sales priced below the cost of 
production (COP), which were made within an extended period of time, in 
substantial quantities, and at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time.\8\ Thus, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds in 
the current review to believe or suspect that Maquilacero and 
Regiopytsa had made sales of the foreign like product at prices below 
the COP. On October 14, 2011, we therefore requested that both parties 
provide cost information in response to section D of the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ At the beginning of this review, sales for both Maquilacero 
and Regiopytsa had been most recently disregarded in the 2008/2009 
administrative review, as discussed in Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe 
and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 55559, 55565-55566 (September 13, 
2010), unchanged in Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 
FR 9547 (February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a review of the cost information provided, neither company 
appeared to experience significant changes in its cost of manufacturing 
(COM) throughout the period of review. Thus, we followed our normal 
methodology of calculating a review-period, weighted-average cost for 
each product. We relied on the COP information provided by Maquilacero 
and Regiopytsa except, in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act, 
we made an adjustment to Maquilacero's affiliated-party-supplied labor 
costs to reflect the higher of the transfer price or COP. Because the 
record did not provide market prices for these services in the market 
under consideration, we used the COP of the affiliate as a proxy for 
the amount representing the value of labor costs usually reflected in 
the market under consideration.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For further details regarding this adjustment for 
Maquilacero, see the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office 
of Accounting, from Frederick W. Mines, Accountant, regarding the 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments 
for the Preliminary Results--Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.'', dated 
August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted, weighted-
average COP figures to the prices of home-market sales of the foreign 
like product in order to determine if these sales were made at prices 
below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement 
charges, packing expenses, warranty expenses, or indirect selling 
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at 
prices below their COP, we examined if such sales were made within an 
extended period of time, in substantial quantities, and at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
    We found that, for certain products for Maquilacero and Regiopytsa, 
more than 20 percent of the home-market sales were made at prices below 
the COP and that these below-cost sales were made within an extended 
period of time and in substantial quantities. In addition, the sales 
were made at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a 
reasonable period of time. Thus, for both Maquilacero and Regiopytsa, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we disregarded these 
below-cost sales, and used only the remaining sales of the same product 
as the basis for determining normal value.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated the weighted-average normal value based on prices to 
unaffiliated customers and those to affiliated customers that passed 
the arm's-length test.\10\ We also based normal value on home-market 
sales that passed the cost test. In our calculation of normal value, we 
accounted for billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates, where 
appropriate. We also made deductions, where applicable, for inland 
freight, insurance, handling, and warehousing, pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in 
circumstances of sale, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act. In particular, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments for 
home-market direct selling expenses, such as imputed credit expenses 
and warranty expenses, and certain U.S. direct selling expenses, 
including commissions and warranty expenses. For Maquilacero, we 
calculated home-market and U.S. warranty expenses based on a three-year 
history of such expenses. See Maquilacero Preliminary Analysis Memo at 
4 and 5. For Regiopytsa, we calculated U.S. warranty expenses based on 
a three-year history of such expenses but, because the company does not 
track warranty expenses in its normal course of business, it was unable 
to provide a history of these expenses for its home market. Regiopytsa 
did include refunds granted for merchandise in its reported home-market 
billing adjustments. Finally, we deducted home-market packing costs and 
added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We excluded home-market sales of secondary merchandise, for 
which neither Maquilacero nor Regiopytsa could provide complete 
product characteristic information and which both companies reported 
to be heavily discounted lot sales (i.e., sales of assorted 
merchandise), from our margin-calculation analysis. For a more 
detailed discussion of these sales, see Maquilacero Preliminary 
Analysis Memo at 5 and 6 and Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo at 
6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more detailed information on the calculation of normal value, 
see Maquilacero Preliminary Analysis Memo at 9 and 10 and Regiopytsa 
Preliminary Analysis Memo at 9 and 10.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank.\11\ However, we note that

[[Page 55190]]

the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for 
the Mexican peso. Therefore, pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we 
made currency conversions from Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars based on 
the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval 
Service. Because Factiva only publishes exchange rates for Monday 
through Friday, we used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday 
for conversion of dates involving a Saturday or Sunday. See Import 
Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR 
47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2010, 
through July 31, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                 Manufacturer/exporter                  average  dumping
                                                             margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maquilacero S.A. de C.V...............................             0.00%
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V..........             0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comments

    The Department will disclose the calculations we used in our 
analysis to interested parties to this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of 
publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the 
Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for 
submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 
argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the 
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
    Parties are reminded that any requests or other submissions must be 
filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System, in 
compliance with the procedures set forth in Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). 
An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the day of its filing.
    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such argument or at a hearing, within 120 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. If either Maquilacero's or Regiopytsa's weighted-average 
dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this review, 
we will calculate importer- or customer-specific ad valorem assessment 
rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the importer's or customer's examined 
sales made during the period of review to the total entered value of 
the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). See Final 
Modification for Reviews, 77 FR at 8103. Where the duty assessment 
rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on 
all entries of subject merchandise by that importer in accordance with 
the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    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 that were produced by the companies included in these 
preliminary results of review and for which the reviewed companies did 
not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries 
at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate 
company(ies) involved in the transaction.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP on or after 41 days following the 
publication of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective, upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review, for all 
shipments of LWR pipe and tube from Mexico entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash-deposit rates for the companies covered by this review 
(i.e., Maquilacero and Regiopytsa) will be the rates established in the 
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 
percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in 
which case the cash deposit will be zero; (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 
previous review, or the 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 conducted by the Department, the cash-deposit rate will be the 
all-others rate of 3.76 percent, as established in the LTFV 
investigation.\12\ These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, the 
People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping 
Duty Orders; Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 
Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45403, 45405 (August 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 55191]]

antidumping 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 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties.
    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-22109 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P