[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29840-29842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: 
Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Hyundai Steel, a producer/
exporter of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP) from the 
Republic of Korea, and pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii), 
the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review and issuing 
this notice of preliminary results. We preliminarily determine that 
Hyundai Steel is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO (HYSCO).

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 2, 1992, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order for circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of 
Korea.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Circular 
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 
(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and Amendment to Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 
Steel Pipe from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 24, 2016, Hyundai Steel informed the Department that 
effective July 1, 2015, it had merged with

[[Page 29841]]

HYSCO,\2\ and requested that: (1) The Department conduct a changed 
circumstances review under 19 CFR 351.216(b) to determine that it is 
the successor-in-interest to HYSCO for purposes of determining 
antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities; and (2) the Department 
conduct the changed circumstances review on an expedited basis under 19 
CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). No interested parties commented on Hyundai 
Steel's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See letter from Hyundai Steel to the Department, ``Certain 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea: 
Request for Changed Circumstances Review (CCR Request), dated 
February 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is circular welded non-alloy 
steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 
millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall 
thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end 
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). 
These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes 
and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, 
natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating 
systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other 
related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm 
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is 
also included in the order.
    All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description 
outlined above are included within the scope of the order except line 
pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe 
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished 
conduit.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the 
Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela, 61 FR 11608 (March 21, 
1996). In accordance with this determination, pipe certified to the 
API 5L line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L 
line-pipe specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-
pipe specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as 
outlined above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and 
gas pipelines, is outside of the scope of the AD order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
numbers: 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
    All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description 
outlined above are included within the scope of the order except line 
pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe 
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished 
conduit.
    Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the 
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 
numbers: 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Initiation and Preliminary Results

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, the Department will 
conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of a request from 
an interested party or receipt of information concerning an antidumping 
duty order which demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to 
warrant a review of the order. As noted above in the ``Background'' 
section, we received information indicating that on July 1, 2015, 
Hyundai Steel merged with HYSCO. The information further indicates that 
at that time, Hyundai Steel assumed all of HYSCO's operations for the 
production and sale of subject merchandise. This constitutes changed 
circumstances warranting a review of this order.\4\ Therefore, in 
accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a 
changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in 
Hyundai Steel's submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.216(d).
    \5\ See the CCR Request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations permits 
the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a changed 
circumstances review and the preliminary results of review if the 
Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this 
instance, we find that expedited action is warranted, and are issuing a 
combined notice of initiation and preliminary results based on the 
information placed on the record by Hyundai Steel.
    In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department 
examines several factors including, but not limited to, whether there 
were changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) 
supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.\6\ While no single 
factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a 
dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the 
Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor 
to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not 
materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.\7\ Thus, if the 
evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of 
the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business 
entity as the former company, the Department will accord the new 
company the same treatment under the antidumping duty order as its 
predecessor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances 
Review, 75 FR 8925 (Feb. 26, 2010), unchanged in Pressure Sensitive 
Plastic Tape From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 
Circumstances Review, 75 FR 27706 (May 18, 2010); Brake Rotors From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 69941 
(November 18, 2005) (Brake Rotors), citing Brass Sheet and Strip 
from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 57 FR 2460 (May 13, 1992); and Structural Steel Beams from 
Korea: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 15834 (March 21, 2001).
    \7\ See, e.g., Brake Rotors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submission, Hyundai Steel explained that it merged with 
HYSCO effective July 1, 2015. Hyundai Steel stated that the merger was 
approved by shareholders of both companies, but procedurally, the 
merger took the form of an ``absorption'' through which Hyundai Steel 
``absorbed'' HYSCO, which no longer exists as a corporate entity.\8\ 
Hyundai Steel claimed that since the effective date of the merger, 
Hyundai Steel is operating essentially the same business as HYSCO did, 
and that there have been no significant changes in management or 
production facilities, with only minimal impact on the company's 
supplier relationships and its customer base with respect to the 
production and sale of the subject merchandise.\9\ Hyundai Steel 
submitted detailed documentation relating to the merger of the two 
companies (e.g., shareholder meeting report, articles of incorporation, 
and a copy of the merger announcement).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CCR Request at 2.
    \9\ See CCR Request at 3-4.
    \10\ Id. at 3 and Exhibits 1 through 14.

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

[[Page 29842]]

    With respect to management, Hyundai Steel retained its board of 
directors and discharged the board of directors of HYSCO, with the 
exception of Mr. Heon-seok Lee, who was a board member and executive 
(Chief Director of Pipe Factory Manufacturing Support Group) of HYSCO 
and who remains with Hyundai Steel as a member of the board of 
directors and an executive (Chief Director of Pipe Factory and Head of 
Automotive Parts Production Office).\11\ In addition, 12 of 17 HYSCO 
executives remain at Hyundai Steel, nine of whom continue to work in 
business units similar to the HYSCO units where they were employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 8 and Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hyundai Steel further explained that its current organizational 
structure is substantially similar to that of HYSCO; the only 
difference is that the management team of the former company is now 
integrated into the larger management structure of Hyundai Steel.\12\ 
Hyundai Steel explained that the only changes within the organizational 
structure are that certain business units (of HYSCO) were divided and 
integrated into Hyundai Steel's business units.\13\ The documentation 
submitted in the CCR Request demonstrates that the units specifically 
related to the production and sale of the subject merchandise by 
Hyundai Steel remain the same, other than changes in the names of the 
plants and divisions, as they were for HYSCO.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 7.
    \13\ Id. at 7.
    \14\ See CCR Request at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information, and in particular, based on the fact 
that Hyundai Steel's management team continues to include the majority 
of the former HYSCO managers, we preliminarily find that the 
reorganization resulting from the merger of the two companies did not 
result in management that was materially dissimilar with respect to the 
subject merchandise.
    With respect to production facilities, Hyundai Steel reported that 
there have been no changes.\15\ Hyundai Steel provided copies of 
HYSCO's company brochure and noted that the location of the production 
facility, in Ulsan, Korea, also remains unchanged.\16\ Based on this 
information, we preliminarily find that the merger did not result in 
material changes to the production of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 9.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to suppliers and customers, Hyundai Steel provided 
information that demonstrates that there are only marginal differences 
to its supplier relationships. Specifically, prior to the merger, 
Hyundai Steel was HYSCO's largest supplier of hot-rolled coil; after 
the merger, Hyundai Steel continues to be the largest supplier of this 
input to the production of the subject merchandise. Although other 
suppliers of hot-rolled coil to HYSCO prior to the merger are no longer 
providing hot-rolled coil, Hyundai Steel explained that these suppliers 
provided only a small portion of the input to HYSCO before the 
merger.\17\ Hyundai Steel explained that the merger had no effect on 
the customers or sales practices in the U.S. (other than a short 
interruption in sales) or domestic markets because Hyundai Steel is now 
selling the subject merchandise to the same customers in exactly the 
same manner as HYSCO did. Hyundai Steel elaborated that the same 
customers accounted for 98 percent of the customer base following the 
merger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our consideration of the totality of the evidence provided 
by Hyundai Steel, we preliminarily determine that Hyundai Steel is the 
successor-in-interest to HYSCO, for purposes of the application of the 
antidumping duty order. Specifically, with respect to the production 
and sale of the subject merchandise, we find that the merger of these 
two companies resulted in no significant changes to management or 
production facilities. Additionally, the minor changes in supplier 
relationships and customers that Hyundai Steel identified indicate that 
there had been no material change in suppliers of inputs or services 
related to the production, sale and distribution of the subject 
merchandise, and thus do not weigh against finding that Hyundai Steel 
is the successor-in-interest to HYSCO. Thus, Hyundai Steel operates as 
the same business entity as HYSCO with respect to the subject 
merchandise. If the Department upholds this preliminary determination 
in the final results, Hyundai Steel will retain the antidumping duty 
deposit rate currently assigned to HYSCO with respect to the subject 
merchandise (i.e., 3.69 percent). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in the final results of this changed circumstances review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation 
of entries of CWP made by Hyundai Steel, effective the date of 
publication of the final results.

Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be 
limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not 
later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice.\18\ 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are encouraged to submit 
with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary 
of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Parties submitting 
briefs should do so pursuant to the Department's electronic filing 
system, ACCESS.\19\ Electronically-filed documents must be received 
successfully in their entirety by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the due 
dates established above.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    \19\ See 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    \20\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of 
publication of this notice.\21\ Parties will be notified of the time 
and date of any hearing if requested.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \22\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we will issue the final results 
of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the 
date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all 
parties agree to our preliminary finding. This initiation and 
preliminary results of review notice is published in accordance with 
sections 751(b)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(l), (4), and 19 CFR 351.222(g).

    Dated: May 9, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-11390 Filed 5-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P