[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33210-33213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-008]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan for the period of review (POR)
of May 1, 2009, to April 30, 2010. We preliminarily determine that
sales of subject merchandise by Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh
Phui) have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on appropriate
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1131 or (202)
482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 7, 1984, the Department published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from Taiwan. See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
From Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Order, 49 FR 19369 (May 7, 1984)
(Antidumping Duty Order). On May 3, 2009, the Department issued a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order
for the POR. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,
75 FR 23236, 23237 (May 3, 2010). On June 1, 2010, a domestic producer,
U.S. Steel Corporation (petitioner), requested an administrative review
of Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui) and Yieh Hsing Enterprise
Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing). Yieh Phui requested an administrative review of
itself on June 1, 2010. On June 30, 2010, the Department published the
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review.
See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30,
2010). The Department issued its original questionnaire to Yieh Phui
and Yieh Hsing on July 1, 2010.
On November 18, 2010, the Department published a notice rescinding
the review with respect to Yieh Hsing, following petitioner's
withdrawal of its request for an administrative review of that company.
See Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Notice of
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
70723 (November 18, 2010).
Yieh Phui submitted a response to Section A of the Department's
questionnaire on July 29, 2010, and a response to Sections B, C, and D
of the Department's questionnaire on August 23, 2010. In response to
the Department's September 1, 2010, supplemental questionnaire
pertaining to Yieh Phui's Section A response, Yieh Phui submitted a
response on September 29, 2010. In response to the Department's
September 13, 2010, supplemental questionnaire pertaining to Yieh
Phui's Section D response, Yieh Phui submitted a response on October
15, 2010. In response to the Department's October 14, 2010,
supplemental questionnaire covering Sections A-C, Yieh Phui submitted a
response on November 9, 2010. In response to the Department's December
10, 2010, supplemental questionnaire covering Sections A-D, Yieh Phui
submitted a response on January 7, 2011. In response to the
Department's January 24, 2011 supplemental questionnaire, Yieh Phui
submitted a response on February 14, 2011. On March 25, 2011, the
petitioner submitted comments and recommendations for the Department to
consider in reaching its preliminary results. On April 20, 2011, Yieh
Phui provided a response to the petitioner's March 25, 2011 comments
and recommendations.
On January 20, 2011, the Department extended the deadline for
completion of the preliminary results by 120 days, to May 31, 2011. See
Circular Welded Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit
for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76
FR 3612 (January 20, 2011).
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order is certain circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are defined as: Welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross section, with walls not
thinner than 0.065 inch, and 0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5 inches
in outside diameter, currently classified under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.5025,
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise subject to this order is
dispositive.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of certain circular welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes to the United States were made at less than NV, we
compared the export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for
Yieh Phui, we compared the EPs of individual transactions, as
applicable, to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product in
the appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales
made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of
Production Analysis'' section below.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used export price (EP), as
defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the
producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of
the Act (see discussion immediately below). We calculated an EP for
Yieh Phui's U.S. sales because they were made directly to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and
[[Page 33211]]
constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the
facts on the record.
For EP sales, we made deductions from the starting price (gross
unit price), where appropriate, for movement expenses in accordance
with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. Movement expenses included foreign
inland freight (from plant to warehouse, and from plant to port of
exportation), foreign warehousing expenses, foreign brokerage fees,
foreign trade promotion fees, foreign harbor maintenance fees, and
international freight (consisting of ocean freight, bill of lading
documentation fees, and containerization fees).
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided
the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity
is inappropriate) and that there is not a particular market situation
that prevents a proper comparison with sales to the United States. The
statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be
considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the
aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to
the United States. See section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
We found that Yieh Phui had a viable home market for circular
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes because its home market sales, by
quantity, exceeded the five percent threshold. See Yieh Phui's November
9, 2010, supplemental questionnaire response, at Exhibit 3.
Yieh Phui submitted home market sales data for purposes of the
calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in
the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices''
section below.
B. Arm's-Length Sales
The respondent reported sales of the foreign like product to
affiliated customers, which, according to Yieh Phui, consumed the
merchandise. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were
made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales
to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges,
direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to that
affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent
of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to the
unaffiliated parties at the same level of trade, we determined that the
sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See
Modification Concerning Affiliated Party Sales in the Comparison
Market, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). Yieh Phui's sales to
affiliated parties that were determined not to be at arm's length were
disregarded in the cost test and in the comparison to U.S. sales.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding, we had reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product
by the respondent were made at prices below the cost of production
(COP) during the POR, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act. Therefore, we required Yieh Phui to submit a response to
Section D of the Department's Questionnaire.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We disregarded below-cost sales in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding as of the initiation of this
administrative review (see Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and
Tubes From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 31958, 31960 (June 8, 2004) (unchanged
in final results, Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From
Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69
FR 58390 (September 30, 2004)). The respondent in the most recently
completed segment of the proceeding as of the initiation of this
administrative review was Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. However,
the Department found Yieh Phui to be the successor-in-interest to
Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd. See Certain Circular Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstance Review, 70 FR 71802 (November 30, 2005).
Accordingly, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that
home market sales of the foreign like product by the respondent were
made at prices below the COP during the POR. See section 773(b) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP by model based on the sum of materials,
fabrication, general and administrative (G&A), and interest
expenses.\2\ For more details, see ``Analysis Memorandum for Yieh Phui
Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Yieh Phui): Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes
and Tubes from Taiwan (A-583-008), May 1, 2009-April 30, 2010'' (``Yieh
Phui Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''). Based on the review of record
evidence, Yieh Phui did not appear to experience significant changes in
cost of manufacturing during the POR. Therefore, we followed our normal
methodology of calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Memorandum
for the Preliminary Results: Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd.:
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan (A-583-
008), May 1, 2009-April 30, 2010'' regarding Yieh Phui's reported
COP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average COPs for the respondent to its
home market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e.,
normally a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether
such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time. On a model-specific basis, we compared the
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges,
discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
We disregard below-cost sales where: (1) 20 Percent or more of the
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were made at
prices below the COP in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)
of the Act; and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average
COPs for the POR, we determine that the below-cost sales of the product
were at prices that would not permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Act. We found Yieh Phui made sales below cost and we disregarded such
sales where appropriate. See ``Yieh Phui Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.''
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We determined NV for Yieh Phui as follows. We made deductions from
the gross price to account for discounts and rebates. We deducted home
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. We also deducted home market
movement expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In
addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically,
we made adjustments to normal value for comparison to Yieh Phui's EP
transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (i.e., credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses (i.e., credit expenses, bank charges, and cargo certification
fees) and U.S. commissions. See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.410(c). Where we compared Yieh Phui's U.S. sales to home
market sales
[[Page 33212]]
of merchandise, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be
based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on constructed value
(CV). Accordingly, for those models of circular welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes for which we could not determine the NV based on
comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a
comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the
COP test, we based NV on CV.
Sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act provide that CV shall
be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the
imported merchandise plus amounts for selling, general and
administrative expenses (SG&A), interest expenses, profit, and U.S.
packing expenses. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication
based on the methodology described in the COP section of this notice.
We based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts incurred and realized by
the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption
in the comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of
the Act.
We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We deducted direct
selling expenses incurred for home market sales (i.e., credit
expenses). See section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(c). We added U.S. direct selling expenses (i.e., credit
expenses, bank charges, and cargo certification fees) and U.S.
commissions to the NV.
F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determine NV
based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade
(LOT) as the EP and CEP sales, to the extent practicable. When there
are no sales at the same LOT, we compare U.S. sales to comparison
market sales at a different LOT. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is
that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), to determine whether comparison
market sales were at a different LOT, we examine stages in the
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length affiliated)
customers. The Department identifies the LOT based on: The starting
price or constructed value (for normal value); the starting price (for
EP sales); and the starting price, as adjusted under section 772(d) of
the Act (for CEP sales). If the comparison-market sales were at a
different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Finally, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP
LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in
LOT between NV and CEP affected price comparability, we will grant a
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Yieh Phui indicated there was a single level of trade for all sales
in both markets, and petitioner has not claimed that multiple levels of
trade existed for Yieh Phui. Yieh Phui provided information regarding
channels of distribution and selling activities performed for different
categories of customers. See Yieh Phui's July 29, 2010, Section A
response, at pages 12-14 and Exhibit 8. Yieh Phui's chart of numerous
specific selling functions indicates the selling functions performed
for sales in both markets are virtually identical, with no significant
variation across the broader categories of sales process/marketing
support, freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, and quality
assurance/warranty services. For more details, see Yieh Phui
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. We have preliminarily determined there
is one single level of trade for all sales in both the home market and
the U.S. market and, therefore, that no basis exists for a level of
trade adjustment.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date
of the U.S. sale, as provided by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the
following weighted-average margin exists for the period May 1, 2009,
through April 30, 2010:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/
exporter
Weighted- average margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd........................... 11.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
calculations performed within five days of publication of this notice.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments must be limited to issues raised in case briefs or
written comments, and may be filed no later than five days after
submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of
the issues; (2) a brief summary of the arguments; and (3) a table of
authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette. An interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days
after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first working
day thereafter. The Department intends to issue the final results of
this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)
of the Act.
Assessment
Upon completion of the administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue appropriate
appraisement instructions for the company subject to this review
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of this review.
Because Yieh Phui did not report the entered value of its sales, we
will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty
assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales of each importer (or customer) and
dividing each of these amounts by the respective quantities (by weight)
associated with those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment
rates are de minimis, in accordance with
[[Page 33213]]
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate
importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratios based on
estimated entered values.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review for each importer (or
customer) for which the importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad
valorem ratio is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the
importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem ratio is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by the company included in the
final results where the reviewed companies did not know the merchandise
it sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or
exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there was no rate calculated in this review for the
intermediary involved in the transaction. See id., 68 FR at 23954.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for Yieh Phui will be the rate established in the final results of
this review, except if a rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore
de minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit
rate will be 9.70 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of antidumping administrative review are
issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-14031 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P