[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17146-17149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08114]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2015-2016
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that SeAH
Steel Corporation (SeAH) and NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), producers/
exporters of certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic
of Korea (Korea), sold subject merchandise in the United States at
prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR)
September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016.
DATES: Applicable April 18, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Michael J. Heaney,
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) 482-4475,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 10, 2017, Commerce published the Preliminary Results of
this administrative review of OCTG from Korea.\1\ We invited interested
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Between November 30 and
December 8, 2017, Commerce received timely filed briefs and rebuttal
briefs from various interested parties. On January 19, 2018, Maverick
Tube Corporation and TenarisBayCity, and United States Steel
Corporation filed a duty reimbursement allegation with respect to
NEXTEEL.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 46963 (October 10, 2017) (Preliminary
Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum (Preliminary Decision
Memorandum).
\2\ See Maverick Letter, ``Oil Country Tubular Goods from The
Republic of Korea: Duty Reimbursement and Further Information in
Support of Duties as a Cost Allegation,'' dated January 19, 2018,
refiled as ``Oil Country Tubular Goods from The Republic of Korea:
Resubmission of Petitioners' Duty Reimbursement and Further
Information in Support of Duties as a Cost Allegation,'' dated
February 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce exercised its discretion to toll all deadlines affected by
the closure of the Federal Government from January 20 through 22,
2018.\3\ If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance
with Commerce's practice, the deadline will become the next business
day. As a result, the revised deadline for the final results of this
review was February 12, 2018. On January 31, 2018, Commerce postponed
the final results of this review until April 11, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the
Federal Government,'' dated January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding have been extended by three days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These final results cover 31 companies.\4\ Based on an analysis of
the comments received, Commerce has made changes to the weighted-
average dumping margins determined for the respondents. The weighted-
average dumping margins are listed in the ``Final Results of Review''
section, below. Commerce conducted this review in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 31 companies consist of two mandatory respondents, four
companies for which we made a final determination of no shipments,
and 25 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 of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the
Final Results of the 2015-2016 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the
Republic of Korea,'' dated concurrently with this notice (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. The issues are identified 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 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
[[Page 17147]]
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, and for the reasons
explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain
changes to the Preliminary Results. We made one revision to our
preliminary calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin for
SeAH.\6\ For NEXTEEL, Commerce determined that it is appropriate to
apply total adverse facts available for these final results.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.
\7\ Id., at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
For these final results, we find that NEXTEEL withheld necessary
information and significantly impeaded the proceeding and, thus, failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to Commerce's
requests for information. Therefore, we find that the application of
adverse facts available, pursuant to section 776(a)-(b) of the Act, is
warranted with respect to NEXTEEL. For a full description of the
methodology and rationale underlying our conclusions, see Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
Final Determination of No Shipments
In the Preliminary Results, Commerce preliminarily determined that
Hyundai RB Co., Ltd. (Hyundai RB), Samsung, Samsung C&T Corporation
(Samsung C&T), and SeAH Besteel Corporation (SeAH Besteel) had no
shipments during the POR.\8\ 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 RB, Samsung,
Samsung C&T and SeAH Besteel made no shipments during the POR.
Accordingly, consistent with Commerce's practice, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries
of merchandise produced by these four companies, but exported by other
parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at
the all-others rate.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Results, 82 FR at 46963.
\9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duty Absorption
In the Preliminary Results, Commerce indicated that it would make a
determination in the final results of this review as to whether SeAH
and NEXTEEL absorbed antidumping duties during the instant POR.\10\ For
these final results, we find that SeAH and NEXTEEL have absorbed
antidumping duties.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum, at 6.
\11\ For further discussion, see Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Examined Companies
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for
examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative
review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce
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} .''
For these final results, we calculated a weighted-average dumping
margin that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the
basis of facts available for SeAH, and we determined NEXTEEL's margin
entirely on the basis of facts available. Because SeAH's weighted-
average dumping margin is the only margin that is not zero, de minimis,
or determined entirely on the basis of facts available, in accordance
with our standard practice, Commerce has assigned to the companies not
individually examined the 6.75 percent weighted-average dumping margin
calculated for SeAH for these final results.
Final Results of Review
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period September 1, 2015 through August 31, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Appendizx II for a full list of these companies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average dumping
Exporter or producer margins (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd........................... 75.81
SeAH Steel Corporation..................... 6.75
Non-examined companies\12\................. 6.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
Commerce 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),
Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. Commerce 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. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered
value of the sales to each importer (or customer).\13\ Where Commerce
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, Commerce will direct CBP
to assess importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates based on
the resulting per-unit rates.\14\ Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific ad
[[Page 17148]]
valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.50
percent), Commerce will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties
at the time of liquidation.\15\ Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, Commerce
will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
\16\ 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 Commerce'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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of
merchandise produced by 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,\18\ the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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 Commerce'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, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Duty Absorption
V. Margin Calculations and Application of AFA
VI. Rate for Non-Examined Companies
VII. Discussion of the Issues
General Issues
Comment 1: Particular Market Situation
Comment 2: Additional Particular Market Situation Adjustments
Comment 3: Allegation of Improper Political Influence
Comment 4: Calculation of ILJIN's Margin
Comment 5: Duty Absorption
Comment 6: Duty Reimbursement and Application of Adverse Facts
Available
Comment 7: Calculation of Constructed Value Profit
Comment 8: Differential Pricing
Comment 9: Rate for Non-Examined Respondents
SeAH--Specific Issues
Comment 10: Interested Party Standing
Comment 11: Reporting of Grade Codes
Comment 12: Freight Revenue Cap
Comment 13: Treatment of General and Administrative Expenses
Incurred by SeAH's U.S. Affiliate in Further Manufacturing Costs
Comment 14: Calculation of General and Administrative Expenses
Incurred by SeAH's U.S. Affiliate
Comment 15: Treatment of Interest Expenses for SeAH's U.S. Affiliate
in Further Manufacturing Costs
NEXTEEL--Specific Issues
Comment 16: NEXTEEL's Warranty Expense Calculation
Comment 17: POSCO Daewoo's Warranty Expense Calculation
Comment 18: POSCO Daewoo's Further Manufacturing Costs
Comment 19: Suspended Production Losses
Comment 20: Cost Adjustment for Downgraded, Non-OCTG Pipe
Comment 21: Programming Errors
VIII. Recommendation
Appendix 2
List of Companies Not Individually Examined
BDP International
Daewoo America
Daewoo International Corporation
Dong-A Steel Co. Ltd.
Dong Yang Steel Pipe
Dongbu Incheon Steel
DSEC
Erndtebruecker Eisenwerk and Company
Hansol Metal
Husteel Co., Ltd.
Hyundai HYSCO
Hyundai Steel Company \19\
ILJIN Steel Corporation
Jim And Freight Co., Ltd.
[[Page 17149]]
Kia Steel Co. Ltd.
KSP Steel Company
Kukje Steel
Kurvers
POSCO Daewoo Corporation
POSCO Daewoo America
Steel Canada
Sumitomo Corporation
TGS Pipe
Yonghyun Base Materials
ZEECO Asia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ On September 21, 2016, Commerce published the final results
of a changed circumstances review with respect to OCTG from Korea,
finding that Hyundai Steel Corporation 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.
[FR Doc. 2018-08114 Filed 4-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P