[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64483-64486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25952]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-811]


Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined 
that imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular 
welded pipe) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair 
value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed in 
the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 1, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register 
its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of 
circular welded pipe from Vietnam.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 77 FR 
32552 (June 1, 2012) (Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2012, we placed on the record of this investigation a 
memorandum describing a revision to the methodology announced in our 
preliminary determination for calculating the rate assigned to 
cooperative respondents not selected for individual analysis.
    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted sales and 
factors of production (FOP) verifications of the questionnaire 
responses submitted by SeAH Steel VINA Corporation (SeAH VINA) and 
Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Haiphong Hongyuan) 
as well as their respective U.S. affiliates. We used standard 
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting 
and production records, as well as original source documents provided 
by the company.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memoranda to the File entitled ``Verification of the 
Sales and Factors Response of Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery 
Manufactory Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping Investigation of Circular 
Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam;'' ``Verification of the Sales Response of Midwest Air 
Technologies, Inc., in the Antidumping Investigation of Circular 
Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam;'' ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of SeAH 
Steel VINA Corporation in the Antidumping Investigation of Circular 
Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam;'' ``Verification of the Sales Response of State Pipe & 
Supply, Inc., in the Antidumping Investigation of Circular Welded 
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;'' 
``Verification of the Sales Response of SeAH Steel America, Inc., in 
the Antidumping Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality 
Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' all dated 
August 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 29, 2012, SeAH VINA, pursuant to the Department's 
regulations at 19 CFR 351.310(c), requested a hearing. On July 2, 2012, 
Allied Tube and Conduit, and the JMC Steel Group (petitioners), also, 
requested a hearing pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 
351.310(c). On September 21, 2012, and September 24, 2012, SeAH VINA 
and petitioners, respectively, withdrew their requests for a hearing.
    On July 11, 2012, petitioners and Haiphong Hongyuan submitted 
surrogate values with which to value factors in the final 
determination.

[[Page 64484]]

    We received case briefs from petitioners, SeAH VINA, Haiphong 
Hongyuan, and Sun Steel Joint Stock Company (SUNSCO) on September 11, 
2012. On September 17, 2012, petitioners, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong 
Hongyuan filed rebuttal briefs.
    On September 21, 2012, the Department placed on the record of the 
investigation back-up documentation to support the surrogate value it 
used for brokerage and handling in the preliminary determination, and 
invited interested parties to submit comments on that documentation. We 
received comments from Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA on September 25, 
2012, and rebuttal comments from petitioners on September 27, 2012.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2011, to September 
30, 2011.

Scope of the Investigation

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

(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
(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; \3\ (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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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

[[Page 64485]]

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.

 Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this antidumping investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum From Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Issues and Decision 
Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by 
this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as 
Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and 
is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov 
and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the Main Department 
of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the 
electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at 
verifications, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations 
for SeAH VINA and Haiphong Hongyuan. For a discussion of these changes, 
see Memorandum to the File, through Robert James, Program Manager, from 
Fred Baker, International Trade Analysts, entitled ``Analysis of Data 
Submitted by SeAH Steel VINA Corporation for the Final Determination of 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality 
Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam'' dated October 15, 
2012; see also Memorandum to the File, through Robert James, Program 
Manager, from Fred Baker, International Trade Analysts, entitled 
``Analysis of Data Submitted by Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory 
Co., Ltd., for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam'' dated October 15, 2012.

Combination Rates

    As stated in the preliminary determination, all separate rates the 
Department now assigns to exporters will be specific to those producers 
that supplied the exporter during the POI. See Preliminary 
Determination, 77 FR at 32560. This practice applies both to mandatory 
respondents receiving an individually-calculated separate rate, as well 
as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the average of rates 
applied in this investigation. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates,'' because such rates apply to the 
specific combination of exporters and their supplying producers. The 
cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to 
merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a 
firm that supplied the exporter during the POI.

Vietnam-Wide Rate

    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to governmental control, and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Dumping Margins'' 
section, below, have overcome that presumption, we are assigning a 
single weighted-average dumping margin (i.e., the Vietnam-wide rate) to 
all other exporters of the merchandise under consideration. These other 
companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\4\ The 
Vietnam-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under 
consideration except for entries from the Separate Rate Companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Those companies are Daiwa Lance International Co., Ltd., Hoa 
Sen Group, Vietnam Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Vinapipe), Hyundai-
Huy Hoang Pipe, Tianjin Lida Steel Pipe Group, Vietnam Germany Steel 
Pipe, and Vingal Industries Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary determination, the Department determined that 
there were exporters/producers of the merchandise subject to this 
investigation during the POI from Vietnam that did not respond to the 
Department's request for information.\5\ Further, we treated these 
Vietnamese exporters/producers as part of the Vietnam-wide entity 
because they did not qualify for a separate rate. Therefore, we find 
the use of facts available (FA) is necessary and appropriate to 
determine the Vietnam-wide rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 32557.
    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary determination, the Department also determined 
that, in selecting from the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate 
because the Vietnam-wide entity failed to co-operate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As 
adverse facts available (AFA), we preliminary assigned to the Vietnam-
wide entity a rate of 27.96 percent, the highest margin alleged in the 
petition, as corrected by the Department at our initiation of this 
investigation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner 
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may 
employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information.\8\ We find that, because the Vietnam-wide entity did not 
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse 
inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 
From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 
See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 
(SAA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``so as to 
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule 
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and 
accurate information in a timely manner.'' \9\ It is also the

[[Page 64486]]

Department's practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the party 
does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if 
it had cooperated fully.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 
8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \10\ See SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary determination, the Department selected as AFA, a 
rate of 27.96 percent, the highest margin alleged in the petition, as 
corrected by the Department at our initiation of this 
investigation.\11\ For the final determination, the Department 
continues to use the same methodology to determine the AFA rate used in 
the preliminary determination.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 32558.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination Dumping Margins

    We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the 
following entities for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
             Exporter                      Producer           margin (in
                                                               percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH Steel VINA Corporation......  SeAH Steel VINA                  3.96
                                    Corporation.
Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan          Vietnam Haiphong                 5.17
 Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd.    Hongyuan Machinery
                                    Manufactory Co., Ltd.
Sun Steel Joint Stock Company....  Sun Steel Joint Stock            4.57
                                    Company.
Huu Lien Asia Corporation........  Huu Lien Asia                    4.57
                                    Corporation.
Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co...........  Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co..         4.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Vietnam-Wide Rate \13\                          27.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of circular welded pipe from Vietnam which were entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 1, 2012, 
the date of publication of the preliminary determination. We will 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average margins, as indicated below, as follows: (1) 
The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart 
above will be the rate we have determined in this final determination; 
(2) for all Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the Vietnam-wide 
rate; (3) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which 
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporter/producer combination that 
supplied that non-Vietnamese exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Vietnam-wide entity includes: Daiwa Lance International 
Co., Ltd., Hoa Sen Group, Vietnam Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (a/k/a 
Vinapipe), Hyundai-Huy Hoang Pipe, Tianjin Lida Steel Pipe Group, 
Vietnam Germany Steel Pipe, and Vingal Industries Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the 
calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 
735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, 
whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially 
injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or 
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject 
merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the 
Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to 
assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties 
on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CPR 351.305. Timely notification of the 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
735(d) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.

    Dated: October 15, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

General Issues

Comment 1: Calculating Weighted-Average Margins and Cash Deposit 
Rates Using Only Positive Dumping Margins
Comment 2: Financial Statements Used for Calculating Financial 
Ratios
Comment 3: Use of Factors of Production Methodology
Comment 4: Targeted Dumping
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Labor
Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Brokerage and Handling
Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Steel Straps
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Update Certain Surrogate 
Values
Comment 9: Rate Applicable to the Separate-Rate Applicants Not 
Selected for Individual Analysis

Issues Regarding Haiphong Hongyuan

Comment 10: The Department Should Make Adjustments to the Quantity 
of Certain U.S. Sales
Comment 11: Inputs That Should Be Included in Packing, Rather Than 
Cost of Manufacture
Comment 12: The Department Should Use the Most Recently Submitted 
Factors of Production and U.S. Sales Databases
Comment 13: Ministerial Error

Issues Regarding SeAH VINA

Comment 14: Date of Sale for U.S. Sales through SSA
Comment 15: Credit Period for ``Back-to-Back'' Sales
Comment 16: Double Counting Countervailable Subsidies
Comment 17: Ministerial Error
[FR Doc. 2012-25952 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P