[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4333-4335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01505]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-858, C-489-817]


Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India and Turkey: 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in the 
Countervailing Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, Formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily 
determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of certain oil 
country tubular goods (OCTG) from India and Turkey.

DATES: Effective Date: January 27, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lingjun Wang at (202) 482-2316 (India) 
or Jennifer Meek at (202) 482-2778 (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, 
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 2, 2013, Petitioners \1\ filed antidumping duty (AD) and 
countervailing duty (CVD) petitions concerning imports of OCTG from, 
inter alia, India and Turkey.\2\ The Department published the 
initiation of the investigations on July 29, 2013,\3\ and issued the 
preliminary determinations on December 16, 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioners are Maverick Tube Corporation, United States 
Steel Corporation, Boomerang Tube, Energex Tube, a division of JMC 
Steel Group, Northwest Pipe Company, Tejas Tubular Products, TMK 
IPSCO, Vallourec Star, L.P., and Welded Tube USA Inc. (collectively, 
Petitioners).
    \2\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Petitions for the Imposition 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from India, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of the 
Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Thailand, the Republic of Turkey, 
Ukraine, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam'' (July 2, 2013).
    \3\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India and Turkey: 
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 78 FR 45502 (July 
29, 2013).
    \4\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From India: 
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping 
Determination, 78 FR 77421 (December 23, 2013) (Preliminary 
Determination India) and Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the 
Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final 
Antidumping Determination, 78 FR 77420 (December 23, 2013) 
(Preliminary Determination Turkey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 18, 2013, Petitioners filed amendments to the 
petitions, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of OCTG.\5\ In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii), when a critical circumstances allegation 
is submitted later than 20 days before the scheduled date of the 
preliminary determination, the Department must issue a preliminary 
finding within 30 days after Petitioners submit the allegation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Letter from Petitioners, ``Amendment to Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties: Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from India'' (December 18, 2013) (Amendment India) and 
``Amendment to Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Turkey'' 
(December 18, 2013) (Amendment Turkey).
    \6\ Petitioners also alleged critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of merchandise in the companion AD 
investigations. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), the 
Department will issue preliminary critical circumstances findings in 
those investigations no later than the preliminary AD determinations 
scheduled for February 13, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2013, the Department requested that respondents 
report their shipment data for a three-year period ending in December 
2013, the month of the preliminary subsidies determinations.\7\ On 
January 6, 7, 9 and 14, 2014, respondents submitted their shipment 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Department requests three years of data in order to 
identify seasonal fluctuations, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in a CVD 
investigation if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that: (A) the alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement) (i.e., 
so called ``prohibited subsidies''),\8\ and (B) there have been massive 
imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See section 771(8)(A) of the Act. The SCM Agreement is the 
agreement referred to in section 101(d)(12) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. Sec.  3551(d)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Alleged Countervailable Subsidy Is Inconsistent With the SCM 
Agreement

    The SCM Agreement prohibits ``subsidies contingent, in law or in 
fact, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon export 
performance.'' \9\ In the India proceeding, based on information the 
Government of India and respondents reported, the Department determined 
that subsidies provided under the following four programs are 
contingent upon export performance and countervailable: (1) Advance 
License Program/Advance Authorization Program; (2) Export Promotion 
Capital Goods (EPCG) Program; (3) Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export 
Financing; and, (4) SGOM Sales Tax Program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See SCM Agreement, Article 3.1(a).
    \10\ See Preliminary Determination India and accompanying 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 14-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Turkey proceeding, based on information the Government of 
Turkey and respondents reported, the Department determined that 
subsidies provided under the following two programs are contingent upon 
export performance and countervailable: (1) Deductions from Taxable 
Income for Export Revenue; and, (2) Export Financing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Preliminary Determination Turkey and accompanying 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There Have Been Massive Imports of the Subject Merchandise Over a 
Relatively Short Period

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), the Department will not consider 
imports to be massive unless imports during a relatively short period 
(comparison period) have increased by at least 15 percent over imports 
in an immediately preceding period of comparable duration (base 
period). The Department normally considers the comparison period to 
begin on the date that the proceeding began (i.e., the date the 
petition was filed) and to end at least three months later.\12\ 
Furthermore, the Department may consider the comparison period to begin 
at an earlier time if it finds that importers, exporters, or foreign 
producers had a reason to believe that proceedings were likely

[[Page 4334]]

before the petition was filed.\13\ In addition, the Department expands 
the periods as more data are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i). Since the Department typically uses 
monthly import/shipment data in its analysis, if a petition is filed 
in the first half of the month, the Department's practice has been 
to consider the month in which the petition was filed as part of the 
comparison period.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners maintain that importers, exporters, or foreign 
producers, through industry media and conferences, had reason to 
believe that the petitions were likely two months before they were 
filed. As such, Petitioners argue that the comparison period should 
begin in May 2013, not July, when the petitions were filed. 
Furthermore, supported by import data published by the Department's 
Bureau of Census and the U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Petitioners claim that imports of OCTG from India and Turkey increased 
by 50.92 percent and 25.76 percent, respectively, between the base and 
comparison periods.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Amendment India at 5 and Amendment Turkey at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the information Petitioners submitted to support 
their claims that parties had advance knowledge of the petitions, we 
have determined parties did not have reason to believe that petitions 
were likely until they were filed in July 2013. Petitioners have 
presented evidence which they claim shows that certain parties 
considered these proceedings likely or even ``imminent.'' The evidence 
also refers specifically to AD and CVD proceedings. Specifically, 
Petitioners presented evidence of the following:
    [cir] March 2013--Two trade lawyers publish an article in Global 
Trade Monitor (GTM), a publication of their own law firm, stating 
proceedings against Korea may come as soon as the end of the month. 
Their analysis also presents data for India, Turkey, Ukraine, and 
Vietnam.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-32 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-157, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] March 2013--The president of the American Institute for 
International Steel (AIIS) mentions the possibility of proceedings 
against India, Turkey, Vietnam, and ``others'' during an AIIS luncheon 
in Houston.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-33 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-158, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] April 2013--An article in American Metal Market (AMM) reports 
that proceedings against Korea are imminent and mentions the 
possibility of proceedings against ``other Asian'' and ``Eastern 
European'' countries.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-34 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-159, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] May 2013--Another article in AMM reports that proceedings 
against Korea will be filed in July and mentions the possibility of 
proceedings against India, the Philippines, and Turkey, among other 
countries.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-35 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-160, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] June 2013--A third AMM article reports that a ``suspension 
deal'' is possible for Korea and that the end of June (the end of the 
fiscal quarter) will be a ``decisive day'' for the U.S. industry to 
decide whether proceedings should be filed against Korea, India, 
Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-36 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-161, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, all the evidence provided is speculative and also 
demonstrates that much doubt still existed. For example, while the GTM 
article states proceedings against Korea might be filed by ``the end of 
the month,'' it also notes rumors of such filings might be ``empty 
threats.'' \20\ Likewise, the AMM articles use words such as 
``imminent'' when discussing proceedings against Korea, but also refer 
to the U.S. industry as ``mulling the possibility'' of filing 
petitions.\21\ The articles also quote industry insiders noting that 
such ``rumors'' have been circulating for years and that U.S. producers 
must first decide whether their profits will prevent an affirmative 
injury determination before filing.\22\ In sum, we preliminarily find 
that the evidence does not rise to the level of showing that importers 
or foreign exporters/producers had reason to believe, prior to the 
filing of the petitions, that a proceeding was likely. Therefore, we 
have relied on the periods before and after the filing of the petitions 
in July in determining whether imports have been massive (i.e., January 
through June 2013 compared with July through December 2013).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-32 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-157, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 1.
    \21\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-34 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-159, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 3.
    \22\ See Amendment India at Exhibit Supp. II-35 and Exhibit 
Supp. III-160, and Amendment Turkey at Exhibit 4.
    \23\ One respondent in the India investigation stated its 
shipment data for December would be provided at a later date. 
Therefore, we compared its imports for the five-month periods 
February through June and July through November.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents in both the India and Turkey proceedings provided their 
shipment data from April 2010 through November or December 2013. After 
analyzing the data submitted, we determine imports from Jindal SAW 
Limited (Jindal SAW) in the India investigation were massive (i.e., 
increased by more than 15 percent between the base and comparison 
periods) over a relatively short period of time within the context of 
19 CFR 351.206(h). Imports from GVN Fuels Limited (GVN), the other 
mandatory respondent in the India investigation, however, were not 
massive. Combining Jindal SAW's and GVN's imports, we determine imports 
from all other producers/exporters likewise were not massive. Both 
mandatory respondents, Borusan lstikbal Ticaret and Borusan Mannesmann 
Born Sanayi (Borusan) and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S (Tosyali), in the 
Turkey investigation had massive imports according to our analysis, and 
thus so did all other producers/exporters. The details of our 
calculations are contained in business-proprietary analysis 
memoranda.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Memorandum to the File from Mark Hoadley, Calculation 
of Increase of Imports Over a Relatively Short Period of Time: CVD 
Investigation of OCTG from India (January 17, 2014) and Memorandum 
to the File from Mark Hoadley, Calculation of Increase of Imports 
Over a Relatively Short Period of Time: CVD Investigation of OCTG 
from Turkey (January 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    The Department will make final determinations concerning critical 
circumstances when we make final subsidy determinations in these 
investigations, currently scheduled for April 29, 2014. All interested 
parties will have the opportunity to address these determinations 
further in case briefs.

U.S. International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will 
notify the U.S. International Trade Commission about these preliminary 
determinations.

Suspension of Liquidation

    Section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that in the case of an 
affirmative preliminary CVD determination, any suspension of 
liquidation shall apply (or, if notice of suspension has already been 
published, be amended to apply) to unliquidated entries of merchandise 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the 
suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which 
notice of initiation of the investigation was published. As discussed 
above, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist for 
imports from India produced and/or exported by Jindal SAW and imports 
from Turkey produced and/or exported by Borusan, Toscelik, and all 
other

[[Page 4335]]

producers/exporters. However, we also reached negative preliminary CVD 
determinations for Jindal SAW in India and also for Borusan, Toscelik, 
and all others producers/exporters in Turkey. Accordingly, there is no 
suspension of liquidation of entries from these entities.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: January 17, 2014.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-01505 Filed 1-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P