[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32531-32539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13233]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-523-801]
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of
Oman: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily
determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (certain
steel pipe) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) is being, or is likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in
section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The
estimated dumping margins are listed in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary determination.
Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing for
60 days the final determination and extending provisional measures from
a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will
make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication
of the preliminary determination.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury or Ericka Ukrow, 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-
0195 or (202) 482-0405, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 26, 2011, the Department received properly filed
petitions concerning imports of certain steel pipe from India, Oman,
the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(Vietnam) on behalf of Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC
[[Page 32532]]
Steel Group, Wheatland Tube Company (Wheatland Tube), and United States
Steel Corporation (collectively, petitioners).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India,
Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Petitions, October 26, 2011 (hereinafter, the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2011, the Department initiated the antidumping duty
investigation on certain steel pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and
Vietnam.\2\ The Department set aside a period of time for parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage and invited all parties to
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the
Initiation Notice.\3\ The Department also set aside a time for parties
to comment on product characteristics for use in the antidumping duty
questionnaire.\4\ Since the Initiation Notice, the following events
have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India,
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations,
76 FR 72164 (November 22, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
\3\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164; see also Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May
19, 1997) (Preamble).
\4\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164-65; see also Preamble,
62 FR at 27323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 22, 2011, the Department notified all interested
parties of its intent to select mandatory respondents for this
investigation based on U.S. import data obtained from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) and set aside a period of time for parties to
comment on the potential respondent selection. Parties were invited to
submit comments within five calendar days from the date of that
memorandum.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum from Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, to
All Interested Parties, dated November 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 5, 2011, we received scope comments from SeAH Steel
Vina Corp. (SeAH VINA), a producer in the companion antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations involving Vietnam.\6\ We received
rebuttal comments regarding the scope of the investigation from
petitioners on December 14, 2011.\7\ After reviewing all comments, we
have adopted the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice,
below. On December 9, 2011, we received comments regarding physical
product characteristics from a producer named Universal Tube and
Plastics Industries, Ltd. (UTP) and its U.S. affiliate, Prime Metal
Corporation USA (Prime Metal) in the companion antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations involving the UAE.\8\ We received no
rebuttal comments concerning product characteristics from interested
parties. After reviewing all comments, we have adopted the product
characteristics and hierarchy as explained in the ``Product
Comparisons'' section of this notice, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Letter from SeAH VINA to the Department, dated December
5, 2011 (Scope Comments Letter).
\7\ See Letter from petitioners to the Department, dated
December 14, 2011 (Scope Rebuttal Comments Letter).
\8\ See Letter from Prime Metal Corporation USA and Universal
Tube Plastic Industries, Ltd. to the Department, dated December 9,
2011 (Product Characteristics Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2011, the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) published its affirmative preliminary determination
that there is a reasonable indication that imports of certain steel
pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and Vietnam are materially injuring the
U.S. industry, and the ITC notified the Department of its finding.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India,
Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, Investigation Nos. 701-
TA-482-485 and 731-TA-1191-1194 (Preliminary), 76 FR 78313 (December
16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 21, 2011, the Department selected Al Jazeera Steel
Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera) as the mandatory respondent in this
investigation and issued the Department's antidumping duty
questionnaire to this respondent on December 22, 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from
Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7, titled ``Circular Welded
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman):
Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated December 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Jazeera submitted its response to section A of the Department's
antidumping duty questionnaire on January 26, 2012, which was rejected
by the Department due to a filing error. It was resubmitted on March 6,
2012.\11\ On February 9, 2012, Al Jazeera filed its responses to
sections B (i.e., the section covering comparison market sales, BQR)
and C (i.e., the section covering U.S. sales, CQR) of the Department's
antidumping duty questionnaire.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum to The File, from John K. Drury,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 7, titled
``Antidumping Duty Investigation on Circular Welded Carbon-Quality
Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman: Rejection of Submission,''
dated March 7, 2012.
\12\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated
February 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 17, 2012, the Department received an allegation from
petitioners that home market sales made by Al Jazeera were made at
prices below the cost of production.\13\ On February 29, 2012,
petitioners made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a postponement of the preliminary
determination. On March 8, 2012, the Department initiated a sales-
below-cost of production investigation with respect to Al Jazeera.\14\
Accordingly, the Department requested Al Jazeera to respond to section
D (i.e., the section covering the cost of production (COP) and
constructed value (CV)) of the Department's antidumping duty
questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Letter from Allied Tube and Conduit and JMC Steel Group
to the Department (Below Cost Allegation Letter) at 1-7, dated
February 17, 2012.
\14\ See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, Director, Office 7,
titled, ``The Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production for Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG,'' from the Team
(Al Jazeera Cost Initiation Memo), dated March 8, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 2012, the Department postponed the preliminary
determination of this investigation until May 23, 2012.\15\ On March
19, 2012, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire
concerning Al Jazeera's section A-C responses.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India,
the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 15718 (March 16, 2012).
\16\ See Letter from the Department Al Jazeera, dated March 19,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 3, 2012, petitioner Wheatland Tube filed an allegation
that targeted dumping was occurring with respect to certain steel pipe
produced and exported from Oman by Al Jazeera. See the ``Allegation of
Targeted Dumping'' section below.
Al Jazeera submitted its responses to the Department's first
supplemental questionnaire (FSQR) and its section D questionnaire (DQR)
on April 9, 2012.\17\ Petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit and the JMC
Steel Group submitted comments on Al Jazeera's DQR on April 11,
2012.\18\ Additionally, on April 12, 2012, Al Jazeera filed comments
concerning petitioner Wheatland Tube's targeted dumping allegation.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated April
9, 2012.
\18\ See Letter from Allied Tube and Conduit and the JMC Steel
Group to the Department, dated April 11, 2012.
\19\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated April
12, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 2012, the Department issued a second supplemental
questionnaire covering Al Jazeera's section A-C first supplemental
response.\20\ On April 30, 2012, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire covering Al Jazeera's section D response.\21\ On May 4,
2012, we received the second supplemental
[[Page 32533]]
response (SSQR) and revised home market and U.S. sales databases from
Al Jazeera.\22\ A revised cost database was submitted by Al Jazeera on
May 9, 2012.\23\ On May 15, 2012, we received comments from petitioners
regarding the information submitted by Al Jazeera in response to the
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire.\24\ We received the
supplemental cost (i.e., section D) response (SDQR) from Al Jazeera on
May 21, 2012, as well as an updated cost database.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Letter from the Department to Al Jazeera, dated April
18, 2012.
\21\ See Letter from the Department to Al Jazeera, dated April
30, 2012.
\22\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 4,
2012.
\23\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 9,
2012.
\24\ See Letter from Allied Tube and Conduit and the JMC Steel
Group to the Department, dated May 15, 2012.
\25\ See Letter from Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 21,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2010, to September
30, 2011. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition. See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are circular welded
carbon-quality steel pipe from Oman. For a full description of the
scope of the investigation, as set forth in the Initiation Notice, see
the ``Scope of the Investigation'' in Appendix I of this notice.
Scope Comments
As noted above, on December 5, 2011, SeAH VINA, a mandatory
respondent in the concurrent AD and CVD investigations of certain steel
pipe from Vietnam, filed comments arguing that the treatment of double
and triple stenciled pipe in the scope of these investigations differs
from previous treatment of these products under other orders on
circular welded pipe.\26\ Specifically, SeAH VINA claims that the
Brazilian, Korean, and Mexican orders on these products exclude
``Standard pipe that is dual or triple certified/stenciled that enters
the U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines * * *''
\27\ According to SeAH VINA: (i) If the term ``class or kind of
merchandise'' has meaning, it cannot have a different meaning when
applied to the same products in two different cases; and (ii) the
distinction between standard and line pipe reflected in the Brazil,
Korean, and Mexican orders derives from customs classifications
administered by CBP and, thus, is more administrable.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Scope Comments Letter at pages 1-4.
\27\ Id. at 2. See also Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel
Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan; and Certain
Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Final
Results of the Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping
Duty Order, 76 FR 66899, 66900 (October 28, 2011).
\28\ See Scope Comments Letter at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and
Wheatland Tube (collectively, certain petitioners), responded to SeAH
VINA's comments stating that the scope as it appeared in the Initiation
Notice reflected petitioners' intended coverage. More specifically,
certain petitioners contend that pipe that is multi-stenciled to both
line pipe and standard pipe specifications and meets the physical
characteristics listed in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or
less; is less than 2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a
galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or
has a threaded and/or coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in
standard pipe applications.\29\ Certain petitioners state that, in
recent years, the Department has rejected end-use scope
classifications, preferring instead to rely on physical characteristics
to define coverage, and the scope of these investigations has been
written accordingly.\30\ Therefore, certain petitioners ask the
Department to reject SeAH VINA's proposed scope modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Scope Rebuttal Comments Letter at 3.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with certain petitioners that the Department seeks to
define the scopes of its proceedings based on the physical
characteristics of the merchandise. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from
the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Moreover, we
disagree with SeAH VINA's contention that once a ``class or kind of
merchandise'' has been established that the same scope description must
apply across all proceedings involving the product. For example, as the
Department has gained experience in administering antidumping duty and
countervailing duty orders, it has shifted away from end use
classifications to scopes defined by the physical characteristics. Id.
Thus, proceedings initiated on a given product many years ago may have
end use classifications while more recent proceedings on the product
would not. Compare, e.g., Countervailing Duty Order: Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Canada, 51 FR 21783, (June 16, 1986) (describing
subject merchandise as being ``intended for use in drilling for oil and
gas''), with Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's
Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203-04 (January 20,
2010) (describing the subject merchandise in terms of physical
characteristics without regard to use or intended use). Finally,
certain petitioners have indicated that the domestic industry's intent
is to include multi-stenciled products that otherwise meet the physical
characteristics set out in the scope.\31\ Therefore, for the reasons
provided, the Department is not adopting SeAH VINA's proposed
modification of the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Comparisons
We have considered the comments that were submitted by the
interested parties concerning product-comparison criteria. The
Department established the appropriate product characteristics to use
as a basis for defining models and, when necessary, for comparing
similar models, for this and the concurrent antidumping duty
investigations of certain steel pipe from the UAE and Vietnam.\32\ The
comments raised regarding product comparisons are being addressed in
all four of the concurrent antidumping duty investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Department did not perform a product-specific
comparisons analysis for the investigation of certain steel pipe
from India as the Department relied on Facts Available to determine
the margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department identified five criteria for matching U.S. sales of
subject merchandise to normal value (specification/grade, diameter,
wall thickness, coating, and end finish) and, as noted above, gave
parties to this and the concurrent AD investigations an opportunity to
comment within a certain deadline.\33\ The only timely comments
submitted were from UTP and its U.S. affiliate, Prime Metal. UTP and
Prime Metal requested that the placement of the coating characteristic
in the model match hierarchy be adjusted from that proposed by the
Department, so that it would be the highest in the hierarchy.\34\ UTP
and Prime Metal argued that the coating characteristic should be
highest in the hierarchy of product characteristics because significant
cost and price differences are associated with whether or not pipes are
coated with zinc
[[Page 32534]]
(galvanized), and because of differences in end uses between galvanized
pipes and pipes that are not galvanized.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164.
\34\ See Product Characteristics Letter at pages 2-4.
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of the interested parties objected to the inclusion of the
coating product characteristic in the hierarchy, and none of the
interested parties in the four concurrent certain steel pipe
antidumping investigations (India, Oman, UAE, and Vietnam), other than
UTP and its U.S. affiliate Prime Metal, suggested during the time
allotted for comments on model match issues that the placement of the
coating product characteristic in the model match hierarchy should be
changed from that originally proposed by the Department.
The Department is not modifying the model match hierarchy that it
originally proposed to incorporate the suggestion of UTP and Prime
Metal. The goal of the product characteristic hierarchy is to identify
the best possible matches with respect to the characteristics of the
merchandise. While variations in cost may suggest the existence of
variation in product characteristics, such variations do not constitute
differences in products in and of themselves. Furthermore, the
magnitude of variations in cost may differ from company to company, and
even for a given company over time, and therefore do not, in and of
themselves, provide a reliable basis for identifying the relative
importance of different product characteristics. The Department has
noted that for defining products and creating a model match hierarchy,
``{t{time} he physical characteristics are used to distinguish the
differences among products across the industry,'' that ``{c{time} ost
is not the primary factor for establishing these characteristics,''
and, in short, ``{c{time} ost variations are not the determining factor
in assigning product characteristics for model-matching purposes.'' See
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 12950 (March 11, 2008), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Also, the Department's ``* * * selection of model match
characteristics {is based{time} on unique measurable physical
characteristics that the product can possess'' and ``differences in
price or cost, standing alone, are not sufficient to warrant
inclusion in the Department's model-match of characteristics which a
respondent claims to be the cause of such differences.'' See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Turkey,
65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Model Match Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTP and Prime Metal also refer to price and end-use differences
regarding galvanized versus non-galvanized pipe, but the Department's
proposed hierarchy for the certain steel pipe antidumping duty
investigations did include coating as a characteristic because whether
or not the product is coated (e.g., galvanized) is important enough to
distinguish products from one another. See, e.g., ``Scope of the
Investigation'' in Appendix I. However, differences in other product
characteristics also influence potential end uses. Neither UTP nor
Prime Metal demonstrated why the coating product characteristic should
be considered the most important of all when defining models and for
comparison purposes and, as noted above, no other interested parties
argued for such a change in a timely manner.
Therefore, as noted above, the Department is not modifying the
hierarchy it proposed at the outset of the AD investigations and
included in the questionnaires it issued to the respondents.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products
produced by Al Jazeera, covered by the description in the ``Scope of
Investigation'' section in Appendix I and sold in Oman during the POI,
are considered to be foreign like product for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on the
above mentioned five criteria to match U.S. sales of subject
merchandise to comparison-market sales of the foreign like product.
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market
to compare to subject merchandise sold in the United States, we
compared these U.S. sales to home-market sales of the most-similar,
foreign like product on the basis of the reported product
characteristics and instructions provided in the antidumping
questionnaire, which were made in the ordinary course of trade. Where
we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.
Date of Sale
19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, in identifying the date of sale of
the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the
Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the
exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business.
Additionally, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of
invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better
reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the
material terms of sale.\37\ The Court of International Trade (CIT) has
stated that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than
invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to
`satisfy' the Department that a different date better reflects the date
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of
sale.'' \38\ Alternatively, the Department may exercise its discretion
to rely on a date other than invoice date if the Department ``provides
a rational explanation as to why the alternative date `better reflects'
the date when `material terms' are established.'' \39\ The date of sale
is generally the date on which the parties establish the material terms
of the sale,\40\ which normally includes the price, quantity, delivery
terms and payment terms.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.
v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 19
CFR 351.401(i)) (Allied Tube).
\38\ See Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (brackets and
citation omitted).
\39\ SeAH Steel Corp. v. United States, 25 C.I.T. 133, 135 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 2001).
\40\ 19 CFR 351.401(i).
\41\ See USEC Inc. v. United States, 31 C.I.T. 1049, 1055 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, Al Jazeera reported the invoice date as the home
market date of sale and argued that the U.S. date of sale should be the
purchase order date because U.S. sales are produced to order. Al
Jazeera explains that once a purchase order is confirmed by the U.S.
customer, there are no changes in the material terms of sale. Al
Jazeera notes that quantity can change but remains within specified
weight tolerances. See Al Jazeera's AQR at 15, CQR at 62, FSQR at 4-7
and 21. Per the Department's request, Al Jazeera provided a concordance
table that showed ordered quantities and prices versus actual shipped
quantities and prices for all confirmed purchase orders and shipments
during the POI. See Al Jazeera's SSQR at 8-11 and Exhibit 4. This table
showed few instances in which shipments fell outside of the purchase
order tolerance for quantity and, therefore, the material terms of sale
changed from order to invoice. However, in comparing the information
submitted in the table to the reported U.S. sales database, we noted
that information in the database regarding invoice dates, actual sales,
and purchase order dates, was missing. See Al Jazeera's SSQR at Exhibit
4 and U.S. sales database (``ajsp--us03''). Due to the insufficient
information on the record, the Department is unable to ascertain that
the purchase order date satisfies the
[[Page 32535]]
Department's definition of the date of sale and, therefore, whether it
is appropriate to use it as the U.S. date of sale. Accordingly,
consistent with the relevant regulation, the Department has determined
to use invoice date as the U.S. date of sale for purposes of this
preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
In accordance with this determination, we are excluding from our
analysis those sales which are known to be based on purchase order
contracts executed in the POI but shipped outside of the POI because it
is unclear whether the material terms of these sales were set during
the POI. In addition, we have included sales pursuant to purchase
orders executed prior to, or during, the POI, and shipped during the
POI. We will further examine whether there is other information that
denotes a more appropriate date of sale as it is unclear from the
record whether the material terms of these sales were set prior to the
POI. We intend to issue a supplemental questionnaire to Al Jazeera to
address the inconsistencies found. For further details, see Memorandum
to The File, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, from John Drury
and Ericka Ukrow, International Trade Analysts, titled ``Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the
Sultanate of Oman: Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG,'' dated May 23,
2012 (Al Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).
Targeted Dumping Allegation
The statute allows the Department to employ the average-to-
transaction margin-calculation methodology under the following
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ
significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; and (2)
the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into
account using the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction
methodology. See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
On April 3, 2012, petitioner Wheatland Tube submitted timely
allegations of targeted dumping with respect to Al Jazeera and asserted
that the Department should apply the average to-transaction methodology
in calculating the margins for this respondent.\42\ In its allegations,
petitioner Wheatland Tube asserted that there are patterns of U.S.
sales prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among
purchasers, time periods, and regions. Petitioner Wheatland Tube relied
on the Department's targeted dumping test in Certain Steel Nails From
the United Arab Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008), and Certain Steel
Nails From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008) (collectively,
Nails), as applied in more recent investigations such as Multilayered
Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 30656, 30659-60
(May 26, 2011). See petitioner Wheatland Tube's Submission of Targeted
Dumping Allegations dated April 3, 2012, at pages 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Letter from Wheatland Tube (petitioner) to the
Department, dated April 3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Targeted Dumping Test
We conducted customer, time-period, and region targeted dumping
analyses for Al Jazeera using the methodology we adopted in Nails and
most recently articulated in Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-
Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 59223 (September
27, 2010) (Coated Paper), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; and Multilayered Wood Flooring From the
Peoples Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 76 FR 64318 (October 18, 2011) (Wood Flooring), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
The methodology we employed involves a two-stage test; the first
stage addresses the pattern requirement and the second stage addresses
the significant-difference requirement. See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, Nails, Coated Paper, and Wood Flooring. In this test, we made
all price comparisons on the basis of identical merchandise (i.e., by
control number (CONNUM)). We based all of our targeted dumping
calculations on the U.S. net price, which we determined for U.S. sales
by Al Jazeera in our standard margin calculations. For further
discussion of the test and results, see the Al Jazeera Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum. As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily
determine that there is a pattern of U.S. prices for comparable
merchandise that differs significantly among certain regions and time
periods for Al Jazeera in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act and our current practice as discussed in Nails, Wood Flooring,
and Coated Paper.
B. Price Comparison Method
Section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act states that the Department may
compare the weighted average of the NV to export prices (EPs) (or
constructed export prices (CEPs)) of individual transactions for
comparable merchandise if the Department explains why differences in
the patterns of EPs (or CEPs) cannot be taken into account using the
average-to-average methodology. As described above, we preliminarily
determine that, with respect to sales by Al Jazeera, for certain
regions and time periods there was a pattern of prices that differed
significantly. We find that these differences cannot be taken into
account using the standard average-to average methodology because the
average-to-average methodology conceals differences in the patterns of
prices between the targeted and non-targeted groups by averaging low-
priced sales to the targeted group with high-priced sales to the non-
targeted group. Therefore, pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the
Act, for the preliminary determination we find that the standard
average-to-average methodology does not take into account Al Jazeera's
price differences because the standard methodology masks dumping that
is unmasked by application of the alternative average-to-transaction
comparison method to all of Al Jazeera's U.S. sales. Accordingly, for
this preliminary determination, we applied the average-to-transaction
methodology to all U.S. sales made by Al Jazeera. See the Al Jazeera
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for further discussion.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Al Jazeera's sales of certain steel pipe from
Oman to the United States were made at LTFV during the POI, we compared
the EP of these U.S. sales NV or CV, as appropriate, as described in
the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we compared POI
transaction-specific EPs to POI weighted-average NVs of foreign like
product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as
discussed in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section below.
Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as ``the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
[[Page 32536]]
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 subsection (c).''
For purposes of this preliminary determination, we calculated EP
for Al Jazeera, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because
the merchandise was sold, prior to exportation by the producer, outside
of the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. For Al Jazeera, we calculated EP based on the packed price that
was charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We made deductions
for movement expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including deductions for foreign inland
freight (plant/warehouse to the border), ocean freight, and brokerage
and handling. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for credit
expenses, certain direct selling expenses (including commissions and
bank charges), and billing adjustments. See the Al Jazeera Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum for a detailed discussion of these adjustments.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability and Comparison-Market Selection
To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales of
certain steel pipe 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 is equal to or greater than five percent of the
aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared respondent's volume of
home market sales of the foreign like product to its volume of U.S.
sales of the subject merchandise during the POI. See section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that
Al Jazeera had a viable home market during the POI. Consequently, we
based NV on Al Jazeera's home market sales.
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
Pursuant to its regulations, the Department may use prices from
sales made to affiliated parties if the price is comparable to the
price at which the exporter or producer sold the foreign like product
to a non-affiliate. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). However, the Department will
not calculate NV based on the sale to an affiliated party if sales of
the foreign like product by an exporter or producer to affiliated
parties account for less than five percent of the total value (or
quantity) of the exporter's or producer's sales of the foreign like
product in the market in question, or if sales to the affiliated party
are comparable, as defined in 19 CFR 351.403(c). See 19 CFR 351.403(d).
During the POI, Al Jazeera sold the foreign like product to an
affiliated customer. However, these sales constituted less than five
percent of Al Jazeera's total aggregate sales of foreign like product
in the home market. See Al Jazeera's FSQR at 3, 9, and Exhibit 4.
Accordingly, and pursuant to the Department's regulations, we have not
used any of Al Jazeera's sales to the affiliated customer as all of
these sales failed the arm's-length test.
C. Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. See also section
773(a)(7) of the Act. The LOT for NV is based on the starting prices of
sales in the home market or, when NV is based on CV, those of the sales
from which we derived selling, general, and administrative expenses and
profit. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). For EP, the LOT is based on the
starting price, which is usually the price from the exporter to the
importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this investigation, Al
Jazeera reported only EP sales to the United States.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See AQR at Exhibit 1, CQR database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine if the home-market sales are made at a different LOT
than EP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and the
selling functions performed along the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If
home-market sales are at a different LOT, as manifested in a pattern of
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and
home-market sales made at the LOT of the export transaction, and the
difference affects price comparability, then we make a LOT adjustment
to NV under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. See,
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR
61731, 61733 (November 19, 1997).
In this investigation, we obtained information from Al Jazeera
regarding the marketing stages involved in making their reported home
market and U.S. market sales, including a description of the selling
activities performed by Al Jazeera for each channel of distribution.
See Al Jazeera's AQR at 11-13 and Attachment 5 (selling activities
chart); see also Al Jazeera's BQR at 29 and 70. We did not make a LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412(e)
because we preliminarily find that there was only one home market LOT
and one U.S. LOT, and the two were identical. See 19 CFR 351.412(d).
For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of Al
Jazeera's LOT findings for this preliminary determination, see Al
Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
D. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on the Department's analysis of the petitioners'
allegation,\44\ we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to
determine whether Al Jazeera had sales that were made at prices below
their COP pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. See Al Jazeera Cost
Initiation Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Below Cost Allegation Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses and packing, in accordance
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the COP data submitted
by Al Jazeera on May 9, 2012. We did not rely on the COP data submitted
by Al Jazeera on May 21, 2012. Based on the review of record evidence,
respondents did not appear to experience significant changes in the
cost of manufacturing during the period of investigation. Therefore, we
followed our normal methodology of calculating an annual weighted-
average cost.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
With respect to Al Jazeera, on a product-specific basis, pursuant
to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we compared the adjusted
weighted-average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign
like product, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below
the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we used COP exclusive of
selling and packing expenses. The prices were net of billing
adjustments, movement charges, discounts, direct and indirect selling
expenses and packing expenses, where appropriate. See Al Jazeera
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
[[Page 32537]]
3. Results of COP Test
Section 773(b)(1) provides that where sales made at less than the
COP ``have been made within an extended period of time in substantial
quantities'' and ``were not at prices which permit recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time'' the Department may disregard
such sales when calculating NV. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of
the Act, we did not disregard below-cost sales that were not made in
``substantial quantities,'' i.e., where less than 20 percent of sales
of a given product were at prices less than the COP. We disregarded
below-cost sales when they were made in substantial quantities, i.e.,
where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product
were at prices less than the COP and where ``the weighted average per
unit price of the sales * * * is less than the weighted average per
unit cost of production for such sales.'' See section 773(b)(2)(C)(ii)
of the Act. Finally, based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-
average COPs for the POI, we considered whether the prices would permit
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. See
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, for Al Jazeera, we disregarded below-cost sales of a
given CONNUM of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the
basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the
Act. See Al Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices
We calculated NV for Al Jazeera based on the reported packed, ex-
factory or delivered prices to comparison market customers. We made
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for billing
adjustments, inland freight and insurance, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(b), we made, where appropriate, circumstance-of-sale
adjustments (i.e., bank charges). We added U.S. packing costs and
deducted home market packing costs, in accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing for
the foreign-like product and subject merchandise. See 19 CFR
351.411(b). For detailed information on the calculation of normal
value, see the Al Jazeera Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
F. Price-to-CV Comparison
Where we were unable to find a home market match of such or similar
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based
NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance
with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.
G. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, and where applicable,
we calculated CV based on the sum of Al Jazeera's material and
fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. We
calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the ``Cost of
Production Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on
the amounts incurred and realized by Al Jazeera in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
Currency Conversion
The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank.\45\ However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not
track or publish exchange rates for the Omani Rial. Therefore, pursuant
to section 773A of the Act, we made currency conversions from Omani
Rials to U.S. dollars based on the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a
Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, 68 FR
47049, 47055 (August 7, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils From France, 68 FR 69379 (December 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information relied upon in making our final determination for Al
Jazeera.
Preliminary Determination
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG.......................... 5.59
All Others.................................................. 5.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct CBP
to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain steel pipe from Oman
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Consistent with the Department's practice, where the product under
investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty
investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or posting of
a bond equal to the amount by which NV exceeds EP or CEP, less the
amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export
subsidy.\46\ In this case, although the product under investigation is
also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, the
Department preliminarily found no countervailable export subsidy.\47\
Therefore, we have not offset the cash deposit rates shown above for
purposes of this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004).
\47\ See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the
Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty
Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 77 FR 19635
(April 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a
bond equal to the preliminary weighted-average dumping margins
indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for Al Jazeera
will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination;
(2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but
the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer
of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or
exporters will be 5.59 percent, as discussed in the ``All-Others Rate''
section, below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will
remain in effect until further notice.
All Others Rate
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated ``All
Others'' rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters
and producers
[[Page 32538]]
individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins,
and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Al
Jazeera is the only respondent in this investigation for which the
Department has calculated a company-specific rate that is not zero or
de minimis. Therefore, for purposes of determining the ``all others'''
rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the
dumping margin calculated for Al Jazeera, 5.59 percent, for the ``all
others'' rate, as referenced in the ``Preliminary Determination''
section, above.
Disclosure
The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations
performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five
days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
On May 18, 2012, petitioners requested that in the event of a
negative preliminary determination in this investigation, the
Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (135 days after
publication of the preliminary determination) from a four-month period
to a six-month period. On May 21, 2012, Al Jazeera also requested that
in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60
days (135 days after publication of the preliminary determination) and
extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under
section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month
period to a six-month period.\48\ In accordance with section
735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our
preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting producers/
exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the
subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we
are granting this request and are postponing the final determination
until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended
accordingly. We are also granting the request to extend the application
of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a six-month
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See Letter from petitioners (on behalf of certain
petitioners) to the Department, dated May 18, 2012, and Letter from
Al Jazeera to the Department, dated May 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than
fair value. If the final determination in this proceeding is
affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make
its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the
United States is materially injured, or threatened with material
injury, by reason of imports of certain steel pipe from Oman before the
later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or
45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the
deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of the
publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the
ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our
final determination.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of
the last verification report in this proceeding. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). A list of authorities used, a
table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department. 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Executive
summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
Interested parties, who wish to comment on the preliminary
determination, must file briefs electronically using Import
Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). An electronically filed document
must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's
electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold
a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs,
provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. See
also 19 CFR 351.310. Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing,
or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to
the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, filed electronically using IA ACCESS, as noted above. An
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5
p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication
of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a request for a hearing is made, we
will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be
held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be
determined. See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and
tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (``O.D.'')
not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness,
surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish
(plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and
coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for
Testing and Materials International (``ASTM''), proprietary, or
other) generally
[[Page 32539]]
known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and
structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as
mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term ``carbon quality''
includes products in which: (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over
each of the other contained elements; (b) the carbon content is 2
percent or less, by weight; and (c) none of the elements listed
below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 1.80 percent of manganese;
(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;
(iii) 1.00 percent of copper;
(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;
(v) 1.25 percent of chromium;
(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;
(vii) 0.40 percent of lead;
(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;
(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;
(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;
(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;
(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;
(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium;
(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.
Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53,
A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications.
Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and
A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to
proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.
Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to
a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made
to the ASTM A513 specification. Sprinkler pipe is designed for
sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry
specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.
These products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall
thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or
structural specification and to other specifications, such as
American Petroleum Institute (``API'') API-5L specification, is also
covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the
physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of
the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less
than 2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or
painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded
and/or coupled end finish.
The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) Pipe
suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining
furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b)
finished electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding; \49\ (d) tube
and pipe hollows for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular goods
produced to API specifications; (f) line pipe produced to only API
specifications; and (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-
drawn. However, products certified to ASTM mechanical tubing
specifications are not excluded as mechanical tubing if they
otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., outside diameter and wall
thickness) of standard, structural, fence and sprinkler pipe. Also,
products made to the following outside diameter and wall thickness
combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for
fence tubing, would not be excluded from the scope based solely on
their being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Finished scaffolding is defined as component parts of a
final, finished scaffolding that enters the United States
unassembled as a ``kit.'' A ``kit'' is understood to mean a packaged
combination of component parts that contain, at the time of
importation, all the necessary component parts to fully assemble a
final, finished scaffolding.
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall thickness (gage 20)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall thickness (gage 14)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall thickness (gage 18)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall thickness (gage 17)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall thickness (gage 16)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall thickness (gage 15)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall thickness (gage 13)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall thickness (gage 11)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall thickness (gage 10)
2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall thickness (gage 12)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall thickness (gage 9)
4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall thickness (gage 8)
4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall thickness (gage 7)
The pipe subject to this investigation is currently classifiable
in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050,
7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025,
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085,
7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. However,
the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is
dispositive of whether the merchandise imported into the United
States falls within the scope of the investigation.
[FR Doc. 2012-13233 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P