[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 72 (Monday, April 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18105-18108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-870]


Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 14, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain oil country tubular 
goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review 
(POR) is July 18, 2014, through August 31, 2015. Based on our analysis 
of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin 
calculations, and, therefore, the final results differ from the 
preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins are 
listed below in the section ``Final Results of Review.'' Further, we 
continue to find that certain companies had no reviewable shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR.

DATES: Effective April 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Victoria Cho, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-5075, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On October 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary 
Results of this administrative review.\1\ For the events that occurred 
since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.\2\ These final results cover 50 companies.\3\ The 
Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of 
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 71074 (October 14, 2016) (Preliminary 
Results), and accompanying Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Compliance, ``Decision Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea,'' 
dated October 5, 2016 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
    \2\ See Memorandum from James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. 
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary, for Enforcement and 
Compliance, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results 
of the 2014-2015 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 
on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea'' 
(Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this 
notice and incorporated herein by reference.
    \3\ The 50 companies consist of two mandatory respondents, six 
companies for which we made a final determination of no shipments, 
and 42 companies not individually examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are 
hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well 
casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon 
and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., 
whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or 
not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API 
specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG 
products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG 
products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of 
the order also covers OCTG coupling stock. For a complete description 
of the scope

[[Page 18106]]

of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties 
in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
which is hereby adopted with this notice. A list of the issues which 
parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, can be found in Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically 
via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to 
registered users at https://access.trade.gov and is available to all 
parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 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://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision 
Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain 
changes to the Preliminary Results. For SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), 
the Department: (1) Reallocated SeAH's hot-rolled coil (HRC) costs 
based on the common HRC grade; (2) adjusted SeAH's reported HRC costs 
to reflect the particular market situation; (3) adjusted SeAH's 
reported cost of manufacturing to reflect the arm's-length prices for 
affiliated services; (4) included the net losses associated with 
damaged pipes in the reported further manufacturing costs; and (5) 
applied Pusan Pipe America Inc. (PPA)'s general and administrative 
(G&A) expense ratio to the total cost of further manufactured products, 
that is, the further manufacturing cost plus the cost of production of 
the imported OCTG, because the denominator of the G&A ratio included 
these costs. Also, the Department allocated PPA's G&A expense to the 
cost of all non-further manufactured subject products resold by PPA.
    For NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), the Department: (1) Adjusted 
NEXTEEL's reported HRC costs to reflect the particular market 
situation; (2) updated the constructed value information used for 
NEXTEEL to reflect SeAH's information after adjustments for the final 
results; (3) revised the payment dates for certain sales subject to a 
lawsuit, and recalculated credit expenses based on those dates; (4) 
redefined the universe of sales to base the margin calculation on sales 
which entered the United States during the POR; (5) corrected a 
clerical error (i.e., we revised the margin program to use the correct 
quantity variable); and (6) revised the calculation of certain U.S. 
freight and storage expenses and the universe of sales to which we 
applied these expenses.
    For a full discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.

Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined 
that Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO 
Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation had no shipments during the 
POR.\4\ Following publication of the Preliminary Results, we received 
no comments from interested parties regarding these companies. As a 
result, and because the record contains no evidence to the contrary, we 
continue to find that Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon 
Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation made no shipments 
during the POR. Accordingly, consistent with the Department's practice, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate 
any existing entries of merchandise produced by these six companies, 
but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate 
reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 71074.
    \5\ See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the 
Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate for Non-Examined Companies

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for 
examination when the Department limits its examination in an 
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market 
economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for 
companies which were not selected for individual review in an 
administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-
others rate is normally ``an amount equal to the weighted average of 
the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for 
exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero 
or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the 
basis of facts available{time} .''
    In this review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for 
SeAH and NEXTEEL that are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely 
on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, the Department assigned 
to the companies not individually examined (see Appendix II for a full 
list of these companies) a margin of 13.84 percent, which is the simple 
average \6\ of SeAH's and NEXTEEL's calculated weighted-average dumping 
margins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We calculated the all-others rate using a simple average of 
the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents because 
complete publicly ranged sales data were not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of Review

    The Department determines that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the period July 18, 2014 through August 31, 
2015:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Appendix II for a full list of these companies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted-
                                                                average
                    Exporter or producer                        dumping
                                                                margins
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd............................................       24.92
SeAH Steel Corporation......................................        2.76
Non-examined companies \7\..................................       13.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed for 
these final results of review within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.224(b).

Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance 
with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this administrative review in the Federal 
Register.
    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we 
calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S.

[[Page 18107]]

sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the 
total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).\8\ 
Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by 
dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party 
by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the 
Department will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer-) specific 
assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.\9\ Where an 
importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is 
greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will 
instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of 
liquidation.\10\ Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem 
or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct 
CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping 
duties.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
will assign an assessment rate based on the methodology described in 
the ``Rates for Non-Examined Companies'' section, above.
    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice, for entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR produced by SeAH, NEXTEEL, or the 
non-examined companies for which the producer did not know that its 
merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate 
for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 
68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the ``Final Determination of No Shipments'' section, 
above, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 
entries of merchandise produced by Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, 
Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation, 
but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate 
reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed in 
these final results will be equal to the weighted-average dumping 
margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for 
merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recently completed segment in which the company was 
reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or 
the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the 
most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of 
the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
producers or exporters will continue to be 5.24 percent,\13\ the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of 
Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final 
Determination, 81 FR 59603 (August 30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties Regarding Administrative Protective 
Order

    This notice also serves as the only 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 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of the return or 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: April 11, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I--List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum

I. Summary
II. List of Issues
    A. General Issues
    Comment 1: Calculation of Constructed Value Profit
    Comment 2: Differential Pricing
    Comment 3: Particular Market Situation
    Comment 4: Memoranda Placed on the Record by the Department
    B. SeAH-Specific Issues
    Comment 5: Whether to Apply Total Adverse Facts Available to 
SeAH
    A. Whether SeAH Manipulated Its Margin
    B. U.S. Sales of Non-Prime Products
    C. CONNUMs With Negative Costs
    D. Cost Difference Related to Timing Differences of Production 
and Not to Physical Characteristics
    E. Information on Inputs From Affiliated Parties
    F. SeAH's Inventory Movement Schedules for OCTG
    G. International Freight Expenses
    H. Transaction-Specific Reporting of Certain Movement Expenses
    I. Reporting of Payment Terms for Canadian Sales
    J. U.S. Warehousing Expenses
    K. Price Adjustments for Certain U.S. Sales
    L. Korean Inland Freight
    M. Warranty Expenses
    N. Inventory Movement Schedules for By-Products and Scrap
    O. Costs To Repair Damaged Products
    P. PPA's Unconsolidated Financial Statements
    Comments 6-16: Whether To Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available 
to SeAH
    Comment 6: Date of Sale
    Comment 7: International Freight
    Comment 8: Canadian Inland Freight
    Comment 9: Certain Movement Expenses
    Comment 10: Packing Expenses
    Comment 11: Adjustment to SeAH's Costs Related to U.S. Non-Prime 
Merchandise
    Comment 12: Disregard SeAH's Revised Database Purporting To 
Reflect Weighted-Average Costs of HRC
    Comment 13: SeAH's Cost Variances
    Comment 14: PPA's General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses 
Related to Resold U.S. Products
    Comment 15: SeAH's Scrap Offset
    Comment 16: Valuation of SeAH's Non-Prime Products
    Comment 17: Interested Party Standing
    Comment 18: Timeliness of Market-Viability Allegation
    Comment 19: Reporting of Grade Codes
    Comment 20: Freight Revenue Cap
    Comment 21: International Freight for Certain Third-Country 
Sales
    Comment 22: SeAH's Useable Cost Database
    Comment 23: Use of Average HRC Cost by Grade for SeAH

[[Page 18108]]

    Comment 24: Procedural Issue Regarding Service of Case Brief
    Comment 25: Procedural Issue Regarding Sanctions for Improper 
Conduct
    C. NEXTEEL-Specific Issues
    Comment 26: Whether To Apply Total Adverse Facts Available to 
NEXTEEL
    A. Lawsuit Between POSCO Daewoo and Atlas
    B. Expenses Incurred by a Certain Affiliate
    C. Expenses and Revenues Booked by NEXTEEL and a Certain 
Affiliate
    D. Inventory Movement Schedule
    E. Hot-Rolled Coil Grades Used To Produce OCTG
    Comment 27: NEXTEEL's Unpaid U.S. Sales to Atlas
    Comment 28: Whether the Unpaid Sales Constitute Bad Debt
    Comment 29: Upgradeable HRC
    Comment 30: Transferred Quantities of OCTG in NEXTEEL's COP Data
    Comment 31: Sales Adjustment for Certain Expenses
    Comment 32: Major Input Adjustment for Hot-Rolled Coil
    Comment 33: Cost Adjustment for Downgraded, Non-OCTG Pipe
    Comment 34: Suspended Losses
    Comment 35: Valuation Allowances of Raw Materials and Finished 
Goods Inventories
    Comment 36: Affiliation
    Comment 37: Universe of U.S. Sales
    Comment 38: U.S. Freight and Storage
III. Background
IV. Scope of the Order
V. Margin Calculations
VI. Rate for Non-Examined Companies
VII. Discussion of the Issues
VIII. Recommendation

Appendix II--List of Companies Not Individually Examined

A.R. Williams Materials
AJU Besteel Co., Ltd.
AK Steel
BDP International
Cantak Corporation
Daewoo International Corporation
Dong-A Steel Co., Ltd.
Dong Yang Steel Pipe
Dongbu Incheon Steel
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd.
Dongkuk S and C
DSEC
EEW Korea
Erndtebruecker Eisenwerk and Company
GS Global
H K Steel
Hansol Metal
HG Tubulars Canada Ltd.
Husteel Co., Ltd.
Hyundai HYSCO \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On September 21, 2016, the Department published the final 
results of a changed circumstances review with respect to OCTG from 
Korea, finding that Hyundai Steel is the successor-in-interest to 
Hyundai HYSCO for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash 
deposits and liabilities. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
the Republic of Korea, 81 FR 64873 (September 21, 2016). Hyundai 
Steel Company is also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai 
Steel Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hyundai HYSCO Co., Ltd.
Hyundai Steel Company
Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd.
ILJIN Steel Corporation
Kukbo Logix
Kukje Steel
Kumkang Industrial Co., Ltd.
McJunkin Red Man Tubular
NEXTEEL Q&T
Nippon Arwwl and Aumikin Vuaan Korea Co., Ltd.
Phocennee
POSCO Processing and Acy Service
Samson
Sedae Entertech
Steel Canada
Steel Flower
Steelpia
Sung Jin
TGS Pipe
Toyota Tsusho Corporation
UNI Global Logistics
Yonghyun Base Materials

[FR Doc. 2017-07684 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P