[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32562-32567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13235]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-852]
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From India: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily
determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe from India is
being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value (LTFV) as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act). The estimated margin of sales at LTFV is listed
in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice. Interested
parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian and 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) 482-1131
and (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 26, 2011, the Department received petitions concerning
imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (certain steel
pipe) from India, the Sultanate of Oman (Oman), the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) filed
in proper form on behalf of Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group,
Wheatland Tube Company, 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, filed on October 26, 2011 (hereinafter, the Petitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2011, the Department initiated the antidumping duty
investigations on certain steel pipe from India, Oman, the UAE, and
Vietnam.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We noted in the Initiation Notice that this investigation covers
merchandise
[[Page 32563]]
manufactured and/or exported by Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd.,
which had been excluded from an existing antidumping duty order
covering welded steel pipe and tube from India.\3\ In the Initiation
Notice, we stated Petitioners had referred to Zenith Steel Pipes and
Industries Ltd. and Zenith Birla (India) Limited interchangeably.\4\
See Initiation Notice at 72168. Zenith Birla (India) Limited appeared
to be the current name for what was previously known as Zenith Steel
Pipes and Industries, Ltd., and we indicated we intended to issue
questionnaires to both of these named entities. See id. Because these
companies are the sole companies subject to this investigation, the
Department has not invoked the exception under section 777A(c)(2) of
the Act, and the Department issued its questionnaire to Zenith Steel
Pipes and Industries Ltd. and Zenith Birla (India) Limited on November
22, 2011. Only Zenith Birla (India) Limited responded to our
questionnaire (see ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' section,
below), and nothing on the record of the investigation contradicts our
original conclusion that Zenith Birla (India) Limited is the current
name for the company formerly known as Zenith Steel Pipes and
Industries, Ltd.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986).
\4\ See Initiation Notice at 72168.
\5\ Because the party filing responses referred to itself as
Zenith Birla (India) Limited, henceforward we refer to the
respondent as ``Zenith Birla.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit
comments within 20 calendar days of the date of signature of the
Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 72164. We received
comments from SeAH Steel Vina Corp. (SeAH VINA), a Vietnamese producer,
on December 5, 2011, and we received rebuttal comments from petitioners
Allied Tube and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and Wheatland Tube Company on
December 14, 2011. After reviewing all comments, we have adopted the
``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice, below. The
Department also set aside a period of time for parties to comment on
product characteristics for use in the antidumping duty questionnaire
and indicated that in order to consider such comments, they should be
submitted no later than December 9, 2012. See Initiation Notice, 76 FR
at 72164-5. On December 9, 2011, we received comments from a UAE
producer named Universal Tube and Plastics Industries, Ltd. and its
U.S. affiliate, Prime Metal Corporation USA. After reviewing all
comments, we have adopted the product characteristics and hierarchy as
explained in the preliminary determinations of concurrent antidumping
investigations on certain steel pipe.
On December 16, 2011, the 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 February 8, 2012, petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit and JMC
Steel Group, filed an allegation of sales below cost with respect to
Zenith Birla. Those petitioners supplemented that allegation in a
submission made February 9, 2012. On February 21, 2012, the Department
initiated a cost investigation with respect to Zenith Birla. See the
February 21, 2012, memorandum from The Team to Richard Weible entitled
``The Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for
Zenith Birla (India), Ltd.''
On February 17, 2012, petitioner Wheatland Tube Corporation filed
an allegation of targeted dumping by Zenith Birla. See the ``Allegation
of Targeted Dumping'' section below.
On February 29, 2012, petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit and JMC
Steel Group requested that the Department postpone its preliminary
determination by 50 days. In accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of
the Act, we postponed our preliminary determination by 50 days.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is October 1, 2010, through September
30, 2011. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, October
2011. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are circular welded
carbon-quality steel pipe from India. 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. 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 * * *''
See SeAH Vina comments (December 5, 2011); 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 (Oct. 28, 2011). 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 U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and, thus, is more administrable.
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. 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.
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. Therefore, Certain
Petitioners ask the Department to reject SeAH VINA's proposed scope
modification.
[[Page 32564]]
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 (January 20,
2010) (describing the subject merchandise in terms of physical
characteristics without regard to use or intended use). Finally,
Certain Petitioners have indicated the domestic industry's intent to
include multi-stenciled products that otherwise meet the physical
characteristics set out in the scope. Therefore, the Department is not
adopting SeAH VINA's proposed modification of the scope.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of facts
otherwise available with an adverse inference is appropriate for the
preliminary determination with respect to Zenith Birla.
A. Use of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the
information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under
this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering
authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section
782(d) of the Act provides that where the Department determines a
response to a request for information does not comply with the request,
the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and
will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to
remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the
deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to section
782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the
original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) of
the Act states further that the Department shall not decline to
consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are
met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2)
the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated
that it acted to the best of its ability; (5) the information can be
used without undue difficulties.
The Department stated the following in a letter to Zenith Birla
dated February 6, 2012: ``{t{time} he questionnaire responses submitted
by Zenith Birla (India) Ltd. have been in some instances untimely
filed, and submissions made have contained deficiencies. These
deficiencies have included failure to explicitly justify requested
proprietary treatment for certain information, insufficient public
summaries of business proprietary information, and/or failure to
certify the accuracy and service of certain submissions. In addition,
many of the specific requests for information have gone unanswered, and
in some instances the answers provided have been contradictory. The
number and nature of these and other problems is so pervasive as to
reflect a persistent pattern of obstruction of, and non-cooperation
with, this investigation.'' We noted ``that further deficiencies of
this nature may result in the rejection of such responses in their
entirety, and may warrant the use of partial or total facts available,
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, which may include adverse
inferences, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.''
Zenith Birla did not respond in a timely manner to the Department's
supplemental questionnaire dated February 21, 2012. In response to
requests from Zenith Birla, the Department extended the original
deadline for response to that questionnaire from March 6, 2012, to
March 12, 2012, and from the latter to March 15, 2012. On March 15,
2012, Zenith Birla requested an additional deadline extension, to March
19, 2012, and the Department extended the deadline until 12:00 noon on
March 16, 2012. Shortly before that deadline on March 16, 2012, Zenith
Birla submitted a letter indicating it would submit its response in
three parts: One part on time, one part after the deadline on March 16,
2012, and one part by 9:00 a.m. on March 19, 2012. This letter
requested that the deadlines for each of the latter two parts be
extended by the Department to conform to this schedule. The Department
did not extend the deadline, and none of Zenith Birla's response was
filed on time. On March 19, 2012, the Department issued a letter to
Zenith Birla indicating the Department was rejecting the untimely
response and deleting it from the record. On March 19, 2012, the
Department noted in a memorandum to the file that the documents in
question should be rejected and deleted from the record. On April 9,
2012, Zenith Birla submitted a letter claiming it was responding to the
best of its ability, that the Department could not impose adverse
inferences unless it could show the respondent failed to act to the
best of its ability, and that the Department could not cease the
questionnaire process unless it could demonstrate it lacked the time to
complete the investigation within statutory deadlines.
In this case, Zenith Birla did not respond to our request for
information in a timely manner, withheld information the Department
requested, and significantly impeded the proceeding. Zenith Birla's
involvement in this investigation, when viewed in conjunction with the
requirements of sections 782(c) and (d) of the Act and the instructions
clearly articulated in the Department's questionnaire, show that Zenith
Birla was afforded sufficient opportunities to provide the requested
information, and, therefore, the Department was under no obligation to
provide additional opportunities for Zenith Birla to provide this
information after the multiple extensions already granted. Because
Zenith Birla did not provide the requested information by the
established deadline, its submissions do not satisfy the criteria of
section 782(e) of the Act. Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)
of the Act, we are relying upon facts otherwise
[[Page 32565]]
available for Zenith Birla's antidumping duty margin.
B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the
Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party
in selecting the facts otherwise available.\8\ In addition, the
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA),
explains that the Department may employ an adverse inference ``to
ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \9\
Furthermore, affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse
inference. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products From
Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000); Antidumping Duties, Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); and Nippon Steel Corp. v.
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``While
intentional conduct, such as deliberate concealment or inaccurate
reporting, surely evinces a failure to cooperate, the statute does not
contain an intent element.''). It is the Department's practice to
consider, in employing adverse inferences, the extent to which a party
may benefit from its own lack of cooperation. See Essar Steel Ltd. v.
United States, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8621 at *18 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27,
2012) (Essar) (``Because Commerce lacks subpoena power, Commerce's
ability to apply adverse facts is an important one. The purpose of the
adverse facts statute is `to provide respondents with an incentive to
cooperate' with Commerce's investigation, not to impose punitive
damages.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar From India, 70 FR 54023,
54025-26 (September 13, 2005), and Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil,
67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002).
\9\ See SAA at 870; and, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber
From Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We provided Zenith Birla with notice informing it of the
consequences of failure to respond properly to our antidumping
questionnaires, including failure to respond in a timely manner.
Nonetheless, Zenith Birla failed to provide a timely response to the
February 21, 2012, supplemental questionnaire, despite the Department's
multiple extensions of the deadline for filing the response. See Essar
at *19 (``Without the ability to enforce full compliance with its
questions, Commerce runs the risk of gamesmanship and lack of finality
in its investigations.''). This failure indicates that Zenith Birla has
not cooperated with our requests for information. See Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(``Compliance with the `best of its ability' standard is determined by
assessing whether respondent has put forth its maximum effort to
provide Commerce with full and complete answers to all inquiries in an
investigation. While the standard does not require perfection and
recognizes that mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone
inattentiveness, carelessness, or inadequate record keeping.'').
Moreover, ``{i{time} t is {respondent's{time} burden to create an
accurate record during Commerce's investigation.'' See Essar at *23
(citing Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1583 (Fed.
Cir. 1993)). Zenith Birla's failures have precluded the Department from
performing the necessary analysis and verification of Zenith Birla's
questionnaire responses required by section 782(i)(1) of the Act.
For the reasons discussed, the Department has preliminarily
determined that Zenith Birla has failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available, an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Poland,
Indonesia, and Ukraine, 66 FR 8343, 8346 (January 30, 2001)
(unchanged in Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Indonesia, Poland
and Ukraine, 66 FR 18752, 18753 (April 11, 2001) Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless
Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Japan, 65 FR at 42986 (July 12,
2000) (where the Department applied total adverse facts available
(AFA) where respondents failed to respond to questionnaires in a
timely manner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available
Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 868-
870. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is
sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
fully cooperated. Normally, it is the Department's practice to use the
highest rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent
fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary
information.\11\ The rates in the petition range from 22.88 percent to
48.43 percent. See Initiation Notice at 72168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, 69 FR 77216 (December
27, 2004) (unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland,
70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information, rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review under Section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See the SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value. See id. The
Department's regulations state that independent sources used to
corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation.
See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also the SAA at 870. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable,
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32566]]
During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined evidence supporting
the calculations in the Petition and the supplemental information
provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to determine the probative
value of the margins alleged in the Petition. During our pre-initiation
analysis, we examined the information used as the basis of export price
and normal value (NV) in the Petition, and the calculations used to
derive the alleged margins, thereby corroborating key elements of the
export price and NV calculations and establishing the basis for the
estimated margins identified in the Initiation Notice. Petitioners'
methodology for calculating the export price and NV in the Petition is
discussed in the Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice at 72166-68.
These calculations appear reasonable and no information on the record
provides a basis for challenging the appropriateness of those estimated
margins. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of
the information underlying the calculation of margins in the petition
by examining source documents as well as publicly available
information, we preliminarily determine that the margins in the
petition and in the Initiation Notice are reliable for the purposes of
this investigation.
Regarding the relevance of the rates in the petition and the
Initiation Notice to Zenith Birla, the courts have acknowledged that
the consideration of the commercial behavior inherent in the industry
is important in determining the relevance of the selected AFA rate to
the uncooperative respondent by virtue of it belonging to the same
industry. See, e.g., Ferro Union, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d
1310, 1334 (1999). Because the petition rates are derived from the same
industry and are based either on information related to Zenith Birla
itself or on aggregate data involving the same industry, we have
determined the petition rates to be relevant. In corroborating the
petition rates, we examined the prices submitted by Zenith Birla in its
questionnaire response. While we note these data cannot be relied upon
to calculate a margin for the reasons discussed in detail above, we
note that Zenith Birla's own reported prices corroborate the prices
used in the petition. See the May 23, 2012, analysis memorandum from
Steve Bezirganian through Robert James to the File. Consistent with our
practice of using the highest rate when AFA is warranted, we are using
the higher of the petition and Initiation Notice rates, 48.43 percent,
as the rate for Zenith Birla.
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 India
manufactured and/or exported by Zenith Birla that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
weighted-average margin, as indicated below, as follows: (1) The rate
for Zenith Birla 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 manufacturer is Zenith Birla, the rate
will be the rate established for Zenith Birla. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Note that no ``all others'' deposit rate is required, because Zenith
Birla is the only manufacturer covered by the investigation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Manufacturer/exporter margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith Birla (India) Limited (previously known as 48.43
Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Ltd.).........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to 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 India, or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the certain steel pipe within
45 days of 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 thirty days after the publication of this
preliminary determination. 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). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and
an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to
the Department. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Executive summaries should be
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request
that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the
Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on
diskette.
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 issues raised in case briefs, provided that
such a hearing is requested by an interested party. See also 19 CFR
351.310. If a timely request for a hearing is made in this
investigation, we intend to hold the hearing two days after the
deadline for filing a rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before
the scheduled date.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Hearing 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. Oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is
made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to
be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 32567]]
Dated: May 23, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the India AD Investigation
At the time of the filing of the petition for this case, there
was an existing antidumping duty order on welded steel pipe and tube
From India. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Standard Pipes and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986).
Therefore, the scope of this investigation covers merchandise
manufactured and/or exported by Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries
Ltd., and any successors-in-interest to that company, which is the
only company excluded from the 1986 order known to exist.
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 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; \13\ (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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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. 2012-13235 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P