[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10772-10775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04222]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-830]


Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From Thailand: Amended Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: February 26, 2014.

SUMMARY: On January 7, 2014, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary 
determination that welded stainless pressure pipe (``WSPP'') from 
Thailand 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'').\1\ On January 3, 2014, 
Ametai Co., Ltd. and Thareus Co., Ltd. (``Ametai/Thareus'') notified 
the Department that it was withdrawing its participation from the LTFV 
investigation. Based on the circumstances described below, the 
Department is amending the Preliminary Determination. This amended 
preliminary determination results in revised antidumping duty margins 
and cash deposit rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From Thailand: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 812 (January 7, 2014) 
(``Preliminary Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0182.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On December 13, 2013, Petitioners alleged that Ametai/Thareus 
misled the Department concerning certain affiliation allegations 
regarding Ametai/Thareus.\2\ On December 18, 2013, the Department 
issued Petitioners a letter requesting clarification regarding certain 
affiliation allegations in their December 13, 2013, submission.\3\ On 
December 20, 2013, Petitioners filed their response to the Department's 
December 18, 2013, letter.\4\ Additionally, on December 18, 2013, the 
Department issued Ametai/Thareus a supplemental questionnaire regarding 
certain affiliation issues.\5\ On December 24, 2013, and December 30, 
2013, Ametai/Thareus responded to the Department's December 18, 2013, 
supplemental questionnaire.\6\ In the Department's Preliminary Decision

[[Page 10773]]

Memorandum, we stated that we intended to continue exploring the 
affiliation issue for the final determination.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Submission from Petitioners, ``Welded Stainless Pressure 
Pipe from Thailand: Comments on Section D,'' dated December 13, 
2013. Petitioners filed their affiliation allegations on December 
13, 2013 through Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA 
ACCESS'') under the one day lag rule; therefore, for the 
Department's consideration, the official version of this submission 
is dated December 13, 2013, although Petitioners filed the final 
version with a date of December 16, 2013.
    \3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners, ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from 
Thailand: Clarification Supplemental Questionnaire on December 16, 
2013, Section D comments,'' dated December 18, 2013. The 
Department's December 18, 2013, letter was in response to 
Petitioners' December 13, 2013, filing but dated December 16, 2013.
    \4\ See Submission from Petitioner, ``Welded Stainless Pressure 
Pipe from Thailand: Thareus: Petitioners' Response to Department's 
December 18, 2013 Questionnaire,'' dated December 20, 2013.
    \5\ See Letter from the Department to Thareus, ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from 
Thailand: Third Section A Supplemental Questionnaire,'' dated 
December 18, 2013.
    \6\ See Submissions from Ametai/Thareus, ``Welded Stainless 
Steel Pressure Pipe From Thailand; Antidumping Duty Investigation; 
Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response,'' dated December 24, 
2013, and ``Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe From Thailand; 
Antidumping Duty Investigation; Section A Supplemental Questionnaire 
Response,'' dated December 30, 2013.
    \7\ See ``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination 
of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe 
From Thailand,'' (``Preliminary Decision Memorandum'') from Abdelali 
Elouaradia, Director, Office IV, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated December 30, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reviewing Ametai/Thareus' December 24, 2013, and December 30, 
2013, supplemental questionnaire responses, and Petitioners' December 
13, 2013, and December 20, 2013, affiliation allegations, it was clear 
that there were unresolved affiliation issues. However, before we could 
issue an additional supplemental questionnaire, on January 3, 2014, 
Ametai/Thareus withdrew from participating in this investigation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Submission from Ametai/Thareus, ``Welded Stainless 
Pressure Pipe from Thailand: Notice of Intent Not to Participate in 
Antidumping Duty Investigation and Request of Removal from Public 
and APO Service Lists,'' dated January 3, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 7, 2014, we published our Preliminary Determination. In 
the Preliminary Determination, the Department calculated a 7.16 percent 
margin for Ametai/Thareus, and included Ametai/Thareus' 7.16 percent 
preliminary margin in calculating the ``all others'' rate. On January 
9, 2014, Petitioners stated that there were ``strong indications of 
fraud and certification violations'' and requested that the Department 
amend its Preliminary Determination and apply adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') to Ametai/Thareus because they had significantly impeded the 
Department's investigation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Submission from Petitioners, ``Welded Stainless Pressure 
Pipe from Thailand: Thareus: Request for Amended Preliminary 
Determination,'' dated January 9, 2014 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the Department notes the following facts in this case: (1) 
Petitioners made certain affiliation allegations regarding Ametai/
Thareus; (2) the Department issued Ametai/Thareus a supplemental 
questionnaire in response to Petitioners' affiliation allegations, to 
which Ametai/Thareus responded on December 24, 2013, and December 30, 
2013; (3) after analyzing Ametai/Thareus' December 24, 2013, and 
December 30, 2013, responses, the Department determined that an 
additional supplemental questionnaire to Ametai/Thareus on certain 
affiliation issues was required in order to clarify the record; (4) on 
January 3, 2014, before we could issue the questionnaire, Ametai/
Thareus withdrew from participating in this investigation; (5) in the 
Preliminary Determination, the Department included Ametai/Thareus' 7.16 
percent margin in calculating the ``all others'' rate; and (6) any 
change to Ametai/Thareus' preliminary margin will have a significant 
impact on the ``all others'' rate. In light of these facts, the 
Department finds it necessary to issue an amended preliminary 
determination.

Period of the Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2012, through 
March 31, 2013. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was 
May 2013.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded 
austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in 
outside diameter. For purposes of this investigation, references to 
size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances 
allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not 
limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-312 
or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign 
specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are 
produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable 
domestic or foreign specifications.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical 
tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign 
specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining 
furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249, 
ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3) 
specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A269, ASTM A-270 or comparable 
domestic or foreign specifications.
    The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings 
7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and 
7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010, 
7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and 
7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the 
investigation is dispositive.

Adverse Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or 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, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that 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, the Department 
may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, 
subject to section 782(e) of the Act, as appropriate. Pursuant to 
section 782(e) of the Act, 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; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    On January 3, 2014, Ametai/Thareus informed the Department that it 
would not continue to participate in the instant investigation. 
Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act, facts available 
is warranted in calculating the antidumping duty margin for Ametai/
Thareus. We determined that Ametai/Thareus significantly impeded the 
proceeding by ceasing to participate in the instant investigation prior 
to the Department issuing an additional supplemental questionnaire on 
certain affiliation issues, thus preventing the Department from 
gathering additional facts on these affiliation issues and clarifying 
the record. Additionally, by ceasing its participation, Ametai/Thareus 
prevented the Department from conducting verification of the 
information the company submitted. For these reasons, we find that the 
use of facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of 
the Act is appropriate in determining the

[[Page 10774]]

applicable dumping margin for Ametai/Thareus.
    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.\11\ In 
the instant case, we determined that applying section 776(b) of the Act 
is warranted for Ametai/Thareus. This determination is based on the 
fact that Ametai/Thareus' withdrawal from participation prevented the 
Department from fully investigating certain affiliation allegations and 
verifying the information submitted to the Department, thus 
constituting a failure of Ametai/Thareus to cooperate to the best of 
its ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 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); Certain 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 
(October 16, 1997); Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 
343 F. Supp.2d 1242 (CIT 2004) (approving use of AFA when respondent 
refused to participate in verification); see also Statement of 
Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
(``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA, 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 
Department selects one that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate 
the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to 
provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a 
timely manner.'' \12\ It is the Department's practice to select, as 
AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or 
(b) the highest calculated rate for any respondent in the 
investigation.\13\ Accordingly, to ensure that the non-cooperative 
party, Ametai/Thareus, does not benefit from its lack of participation, 
and to select a sufficiently adverse rate to induce cooperation in the 
future, for the amended preliminary determination, we selected the 
higher of either the highest margin alleged in the petition or the 
highest weighted-average calculated rate for any respondent in the 
investigation. The weighted-average margins for Ametai/Thareus and the 
other mandatory respondent, Thai-German Products Public Company Limited 
(``TGP''), in the Preliminary Determination were less than the 24.01 
percent margin from the petition. Therefore, consistent with its 
practice, the Department selected the highest margin alleged in the 
petition, which is 24.01 percent, as the AFA rate assigned to Ametai/
Thareus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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).
    \13\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183, 2185 
(January 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
submitted to satisfy ourselves that the secondary information has 
probative value.\14\ In this instant case, to corroborate the 24.01 
percent margin used as AFA for Ametai/Thareus, we relied on the pre-
initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in 
the petition as well as transaction-specific margins \15\ for mandatory 
respondent TGP from the Preliminary Determination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000).
    \15\ These transaction-specific dumping margins are based on 
TGP's sales of subject merchandise during the period under 
consideration. Therefore, the transaction-specific dumping margins 
higher than the petition rate of 24.01 percent reflects dumping that 
has already occurred and are based on rates using TGP's pricing and 
cost information that was provided in this segment of the 
proceeding.
    \16\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Imports of Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from Malaysia, Thailand, 
and Vietnam, dated May 16, 2013 (Petitions); see also Supplement to 
the Thailand Petition, dated May 24, 2013; Welded Stainless Pressure 
Pipe From Malaysia, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 78 FR 35253 (June 12, 
2013) (``Initiation Notice''); Antidumping Duty Investigation 
Initiation Checklist: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from Thailand 
(``Thailand Checklist'') dated June 5, 2013; TGP Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum, dated December 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the initiation stage, we examined evidence supporting the 
calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided 
by Petitioners to determine the probative value of the margins alleged 
in the petition.\17\ 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.\18\ Also, during our pre-initiation analysis, we 
examined information from various independent sources provided either 
in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the 
petition, which corroborated key elements of the export price and NV 
calculations.\19\ Therefore, for the final determination, the 
Department finds that the rates derived from the petition for purposes 
of initiation have probative value for the purpose of being selected as 
the AFA rate assigned to Ametai/Thareus. In addition, transaction-
specific margins from TGP from the Preliminary Determination which are 
higher than the petition rate of 24.01 percent also corroborate the 
petition rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Thailand Checklist.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Others Rate

    The ``All Others'' rate is derived exclusive of all de minimis or 
zero margins and margins based entirely on AFA. In the Preliminary 
Determination, the Department calculated the ``all others'' rate, in 
part, based on Ametai/Thareus' Preliminary Determination rate. In light 
of Ametai/Thareus' withdrawal from the investigation and the 
Department's subsequent application of total AFA, this methodology for 
calculating the ``all others'' rate is no longer appropriate. In this 
case, there is another mandatory respondent, TGP, which received a 
calculated rate. Therefore, consistent with Department practice, we 
will apply TGP's rate as the ``all others'' rate in this amended 
preliminary determination.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, 74 FR 
16843 (April 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amended Preliminary Determination Margins

    The Department determined that the following amended preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                Manufacturer/exporter                    dumping margin
                                                              (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ametai Co., Ltd./Thareus Co., Ltd....................              24.01
Thai-German Products Public Company Limited..........            * 10.92
All Others...........................................              10.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Unchanged from the Preliminary Determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of WSPP from Thailand, as described in

[[Page 10775]]

the scope of the investigation section, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a 
cash deposit \21\ equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV 
exceeds Export Price, as indicated in the chart above. These suspension 
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of 
Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 
(October 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our amended preliminary 
determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will 
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 WSPP from Thailand, or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 
45 days of our final determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: February 20, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-04222 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P