Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33200-33204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-815]

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S.,
(Noksel), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled
rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Atlas Tube, Inc. and Searing
Industries, Inc. are petitioners in this case. The review covers
exports of the subject

[[Page 33201]]

merchandise to the United States produced and exported by Noksel. The
period of review (POR) is May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010.
We preliminarily find that Noksel did not make sales at less than
normal value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess appropriate antidumping
duties on any entries made by Noksel during the POR and to set the cash
deposit rate for Noksel to zero.

DATES: Effective Date: June 8, 2011

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1121 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department published the antidumping duty order on light-walled
rectangular ripe and tube from Turkey on May 30, 2008. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from
Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008). On May 3, 2010, the Department
published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review
of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey for the period
January 30, 2009, through April 30, 2010. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 23236 (May 3, 2010)
On May 28, 2010, Noksel requested an administrative review for this
period. On June 30, 2010, the Department published in the Federal
Register a 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). On July 15, 2010, the Department issued its
antidumping questionnaire to Noksel.
As discussed in detail, below, on August 9, 2010, Noksel submitted
a letter requesting that the reporting period be modified to cover only
the period of October 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010, and that it be
excused from reporting certain home market sales of ``second quality''
merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked sufficient records to
allow it to respond fully to the Department's questionnaire or to
identify foreign like product. On August 13, 2010, the Department sent
Noksel a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information
about Noksel's request for limited reporting of home market sales. On
August 16, 2010, the Department sent Noksel a letter accepting Noksel's
limited reporting of home market sales to the period October 1, 2009,
to April 30, 2010, and tentatively excusing Noksel from reporting the
sales of certain ``second quality'' merchandise for which Noksel
claimed it lacked sufficient records. Noksel submitted its response to
the Department's supplemental questionnaire regarding limited reporting
on August 20, 2010 (Noksel's August 20, 2010 Response).
Noksel submitted its response to section A of the Department's
antidumping questionnaire on August 16, 2010 (Noksel's Section A
Response). Noksel submitted its response to sections B and C of the
antidumping questionnaire on September 7, 2010 (Noksel's Sections B and
C Response).
On November 12, 2010, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Noksel regarding Noksel's Section A Response and
Noksel's Sections B and C Response and Nokel's Limited Reporting
Questionnaire Response. Noksel submitted its response to the
Department's supplemental questionnaire on December 20, 2010 (Noksel's
December 20, 2010 Response).
On March 4, 2011, the Department issued a second supplemental
questionnaire to Noksel regarding its prior questionnaire responses.
Noksel submitted its response to the Department's second supplemental
questionnaire on March 23, 2011 (Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response).

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to this order is certain welded carbon
quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including
square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 mm. The
term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy steel
which contains only small amounts of alloying elements. Specifically,
the term carbon-quality includes products in which none of the elements
listed below exceeds the quantity by weight respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent
of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of
nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 0.15 percent of
zirconium. The description of carbon-quality is intended to identify
carbon-quality products within the scope. The welded carbon-quality
rectangular pipe and tube subject to this order is currently classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and CBP's customs purposes, our written
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Limited Home Market Reporting

As explained above, Noksel requested that the reporting period for
home market sales be limited to the period October 1, 2009, to April
30, 2010. Noksel reported U.S. sales which were invoiced in only one
calendar month of the POR. Noksel reported that it had no other U.S.
sales during the POR. See, e.g., Noksel's August 9, 2010, letter.
Noksel also requested that the Department excuse it from reporting
home-market sales of certain ``second quality'' merchandise for which
Noksel claimed it lacked sufficient records. See Noksel's August 9,
2010, letter.
Regarding Noksel's request that we limit the home market reporting
period, our past practice in other cases in which respondents made
sales of subject merchandise in only a portion of the POR has been to
allow respondents to limit their home market sales reporting period to
those home market sales which are contemporaneous with their U.S.
sales. See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694); Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Brazil; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality
Steel Products From Brazil, 70 FR 58683); and Light-Walled Rectangular
Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 61127 (October 4, 2010). For this reason,
we have permitted Noksel to limit its reporting of home market sales to
those months which are contemporaneous with its U.S. sales. In our
margin calculations, U.S. sales made in January 2010 could potentially
be compared to the prices of home market

[[Page 33202]]

sales at any time between October 2009 and March 2010; U.S. sales made
in February 2010 could potentially be compared to the prices of home
market sales made between November 2009 and April 2010. U.S. sales made
in January 2010 or February 2010 could not match to home market sales
made in any months outside of these periods. Therefore, to ensure that
we would have the necessary home market sales, regardless of our choice
of date of sale, we allowed Noksel to limit its reporting of home
market sales to those sales made during the period October 2009 through
April 2010.
Our analysis indicated, based on record evidence, that the
appropriate date of sale of Noksel's U.S. sales might properly be a
date in February 2010. See, e.g., Exhibit C-2 of Noksel's Section B and
C response, at page 2 and Exhibit SB-8 of Noksel's December 20, 2010
Response at page 4. Therefore, to allow the Department to use the date
of sale methodology deemed most appropriate, and to ensure
completeness, we asked Noksel to report home market sales made in May
2010 as well. See the Department's March 4, 2011, supplemental
questionnaire and Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response. Accordingly, for
these preliminary results, we have limited the reporting period for
home market sales to the period of October 1, 2009, through May 31,
2010.
As noted, Noksel also reported that it had made sales of certain
``second quality'' merchandise for which Noksel claimed it lacked
complete sales records. See Noksel's August 9, 2010, letter. Noksel
further explained that it could not differentiate the sales of these
products according to product type. We excused Noksel from reporting
these sales in its sales home market database, but we also subsequently
asked Noksel to report whatever information if maintained about these
sales. See the Department's March 4, 2011, supplemental questionnaire.
Noksel complied. See Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response. Based on the
information on the record, we preliminarily determine that these are
sales of ``second quality'' merchandise that would not be suitable for
matching to the prime quality pipe Noksel sold in the United States.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of light-walled rectangular pipe and
tube from Turkey in the United States were made at less than NV, we
compared U.S. price to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section
777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we
calculated monthly weighted-average NVs and compared these to
individual U.S. transactions. Because we determined Noksel made only EP
sales during the POR, we used EP as the basis for U.S. price in all of
our comparisons.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(i), the Department ``normally''
will use invoice date as the date of sale unless ``a different date
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes
the material terms of sale.'' Based on evidence on the record, we
preliminarily determine that the material terms of sale for U.S. sales
were established at the time of the issuance of the purchase order/
contract. Noksel explained that quantity can vary between the purchase
order date and the invoice date. Noksel reports that a quantity
tolerance is permitted from the quantity stated on the purchase order,
and that quantity can vary after the date of the purchase order, up
until production is completed. See Noksel's Section A Response at page
A-18 and page 1 of Exhibit A-8; Noksel's Sections B and C Response at
pages C-12, and Noksel's December 20, 2010 Response at pages S-62 to S-
64 and Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response at pages 14 to 15. However, in
the case of Noksel's U.S. sale, neither quantity nor unit price varied
between purchase order and invoice. See Noksel's Section A Response at
Exhibit A-8.
Based on record evidence, we also determine that the material terms
of sale for home market sales were established at the time the purchase
order. Therefore, we used the purchase order date, as recorded in
Noksel's normal books and records, as the date of sale for Noksel's
U.S. and home market sales. See Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the
File, ``Analysis of Data Submitted by Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S.,
(Noksel) in the Preliminary Results of the 2009-2010 Administrative
Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey,'' dated
May 31, 2011 (Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by Noksel covered by the description in the ``Scope
of the Order'' section, above, and sold in the home market during the
POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. As mentioned above, we
limited the reporting period for home market sales to the period of
October 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010. We relied on six characteristics
to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to home market sales of the
foreign like product (listed in order of priority): (1) Steel input
type; (2) metallic coating; (3) painted/non-painted; (4) perimeter; (5)
wall thickness; and (6) shape. See the antidumping questionnaire at
Appendix 5. In our normal practice where there are no contemporaneous
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compare U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales of the next most
similar foreign like product on the basis of these product
characteristics and the reporting instructions listed in the
antidumping questionnaire. See Preliminary Analysis memorandum at page
2. For these preliminary results, we compared U.S. sales to identical
foreign like products. In our normal practice, where there are no sales
of identical or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for
comparison to U.S. sales, we compare U.S. sales to constructed value
(CV). For these preliminary results, because there were sales of
identical merchandise in the home market suitable for comparison to
each U.S. sale, we compared no U.S. sales to CV in these preliminary
results.

Export Price

Section 772(a) of the Act defines Export Price (EP) as ``the price
at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold)
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject
merchandise 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). In accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for all of Noksel's U.S.
sales. We preliminarily find that these sales are properly classified
as EP sales because these sales were made before the date of
importation and were made directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers, and
because our CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted.
We based EP on the prices to unaffiliated customers in the United
States. We made adjustments for duty drawback. We also made deductions
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act, which included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign
brokerage and handling, international freight, and exporter's
association fee. See Preliminary Analysis memorandum at page 7.
Additionally, we made adjustments for direct selling expenses (credit
expenses, banking charges) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. Id.

[[Page 33203]]

Noksel originally stated that it reported its U.S. sales and per-
unit adjustments according to Turkish Customs weigh station weights, as
recorded on the Turkish customs exit declaration. However, Noksel later
clarified that it had mistakenly mis-represented the quantity reported
in its U.S. sales databases as coming from Turkish Customs weigh
station weights, when in fact it was taken from the weights from
Noksel's normal books and records, recorded during packing of the
subject merchandise. See Noksel's March 23, 2011 Response at page 14
and Noksel's December 20, 2010 Response at page S-94. Noksel explained
that it weighed individual bundles of foreign like product and subject
merchandise during packing, and was able to tie the recorded weights of
individual bundles of pipe to specific home market and U.S. sales
invoices. See Noksel's December 20, 2010 Response at pages S-88 to S-
98, and S-113. We relied upon this information for these preliminary
results.
Noksel reported that it collected rebates of import duties for
purchases of raw materials, based on its exports of merchandise (duty
drawback), under the Turkish Inward Processing Regime (IPR). Noksel
reported that these rebates were dependent upon its exports of subject
merchandise. See Noksel's Sections B and C Response at pages C-31 to C-
32. Noksel also demonstrated the quantity of imports of materials for
which Noksel received rebates of import duties were sufficient to cover
the quantity of exports made under the IPR. See Noksel's December 20,
2010 Response at pages S-117 to S-119, and Noksel's March 23, 2011
Response at pages 16 to 23. Therefore in accordance with section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we made an upward adjustment to U.S. price for
duty drawback. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube
From Turkey: Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 64250 (October 19, 2010). See also Preliminary Analysis Memorandum
at page 6.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV
(i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales), we compared Noksel's volume of home market sales
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Because
Noksel's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was
viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market sales in the usual
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.

B. Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. We made
adjustments for billing adjustments, where appropriate. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, when comparing sales of
similar merchandise, we made adjustments for differences in cost (i.e.,
DIFMER), where those differences were attributable to differences in
physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and section 351.411 of the Department's
regulations. We also made adjustments for differences in circumstances
of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act
and section 351.410 of the Department's regulations. We made COS
adjustments for imputed credit expenses. See PreliminaryAnalysis
Memorandum at page 3. Finally, 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.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we base NV on sales made in the comparison market at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the export transaction. The NV LOT is
based on the starting price of sales in the home market or, when NV is
based on CV, on the LOT of the sales from which SG&A expenses and
profit are derived.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales,
we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along
the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. See 19
CFR 351.412(c)(2). If the comparison-market sales are at a different
LOT, and the difference affects 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 make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the
Act. We expect that if the claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party
claims the LOTs are different for different groups of sales, the
functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar. See
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
Noksel reported that it sold light-walled rectangular pipe and tube
at only one level of trade and in only one channel of distribution in
the home market and at one level of trade and in one channel of
distribution in the U.S. market. See Noksel's Section A Response at
ExhibitA-7 and Noksel's Section B Response at pages B-12 to B-13 and B-
24.
Based on our analysis of the record evidence provided by Noksel, we
preliminarily determine that a single LOT exists in the home market. We
obtained information from Noksel regarding the marketing stages
involved in making its reported home market and U.S. sales. Noksel
described all selling activities performed, and provided a table
comparing the selling functions performed in both markets. See Noksel's
Section A response at Exhibit A-7. We find Noksel performed virtually
the same level of customer support services on its EP sales as it did
on its home market sales and that the minor differences that do exist
do not establish distinct and separate levels of trade. The record
evidence supports a finding that in both markets, Noksel performs
essentially the same level of services. While we found minor
differences between the home and U.S. markets, based on our analysis of
the selling functions performed on EP sales in the United States, and
its sales in the home market, we determine that the EP and the starting
price of home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing
process, and are thus at the same LOT. For this reason, we
preliminarily find that a LOT adjustment is not appropriate for Noksel.

Currency Conversions

In accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, we made Turkish
lira-U.S. dollar currency conversions, where appropriate, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as collected
by Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (marketed as Factiva) and
as published on the Import Administration's Web site (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html).

[[Page 33204]]

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily find the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period May 1, 2009,
through April 30, 2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average
Manufacturer/exporter margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noksel.............................................. 0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with
section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. An interested party
may request a hearing within thirty days of publication. See section
351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant
to section 351.310(d) of the Department's regulations. Requests should
contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing,
each party may make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised
in that party's case brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief.

Comments

Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the
case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument:
(1) a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; 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. The Department will
issue final results of this administrative review, including the
results of our analysis of the issues in any such written comments or
at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the
Department's regulations, the Department will calculate an assessment
rate on all appropriate entries. Noksel has reported entered values for
all of its sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.212(b)(1) of the
Department's regulations, we will calculate importer-specific duty
assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of the examined sales of that importer. These rates will
be assessed uniformly on all entries the respective importers made
during the POR. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by
that importer. The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP fifteen days after publication of the
final results of review.
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). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its
merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others
rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the
transaction. Id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
Noksel will be the rate established in the final results of review; (2)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 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 (3) 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 the
all-others rate of 27.04 percent ad valorem from the LTFV
investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008).
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 the antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice 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. 2011-14172 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P