[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55186-55191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-836]
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests for an administrative review by two
respondent parties, Maquilacero S.A. de C.V. (Maquilacero) and
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. (Regiopytsa), the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe
and tube (LWR pipe and tube) from Mexico. For these preliminary
results, we have found that neither company sold subject merchandise at
less than normal value during the period of review, which covers August
1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will issue
appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP).
DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dena Crossland (Maquilacero) or Edythe
Artman (Regiopytsa), 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) 482-3362 or (202) 482-3931, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the order on LWR pipe and tube from Mexico on
August 1, 2011.\1\ Two respondents, Maquilacero and Regiopytsa,
requested a review of their own entries of subject merchandise for the
period of review. Hence, the Department published a notice of
initiation of the review on October 3, 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 45773 (August 1, 2011).
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR
61076 (October 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Maquilacero and Regiopytsa submitted responses to the
Department's antidumping questionnaire and responses to subsequent
requests for additional information. The petitioner filed no comments
on these responses.
Extension of Preliminary Results
On May 10, 2012, the Department published a notice extending the
time limit for issuing the preliminary results of review by 120
days.\3\ The extension notice established the deadline of August 30,
2012, for these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico;
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 77 FR 27424 (May 10, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The period of review is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011.
[[Page 55187]]
Scope of the Order
The merchandise that is the subject of the order is certain welded
carbon-quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular
(including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than
4 mm.
The term carbon-quality steel includes both carbon steel and alloy
steel which contains only small amounts of alloying elements.
Specifically, the term carbon-quality includes products in which none
of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity by weight
respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of
silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of
lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10
percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.15 percent
vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. The description of carbon-
quality is intended to identify carbon-quality products within the
scope. The welded carbon-quality rectangular pipe and tube subject to
the order is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and
7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Affiliated Respondents
Under section 771(33)(E) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act), if one party owns, directly or indirectly, five percent or more
of another party, such parties are considered to be affiliated for
purposes of the antidumping law. Furthermore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.403, the Department may require a respondent to report the
downstream sales of its affiliated customer to the first unaffiliated
customer if: (1) The respondent's sales to all affiliated customers
account for five percent or more of the respondent's total sales of
foreign-like product in the comparison market, and (2) those sales to
the affiliated customer are determined to have not been made at arm's-
length.
In past segments of this proceeding, the Department found that
Maquilacero should report the downstream sales of an affiliated home-
market customer pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act.\4\ But,
although Maquilacero reported its sales to the affiliated reseller to
constitute more than five-percent of Maquilacero's total home-market
sales during the period of the current review, we also found that the
sales were made at arm's-length and, thus, we did not request that
Maquilacero submit its affiliate's downstream sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From
Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 55559 (September 13, 2010), unchanged in Light-Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 9547 (February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regiopytsa also reported sales to an affiliated home-market
reseller during the period of review but, as the value of the sales
constituted less than five percent of Regiopytsa's total home-market
sales during the period, we did not request that Regiopytsa report the
downstream sales of this affiliate.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine if sales of subject merchandise were made in the
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), we compared the price of
U.S. sales to normal value, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. For these preliminary
results, the Department applied the methodology for calculation of a
weighted-average dumping margin recently adopted in Antidumping
Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for
Reviews). In particular, we compared monthly weighted-average U.S.
prices with monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets
for any non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted-
average dumping margin.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Order''
section above and that were produced by Maquilacero and Regiopytsa and
sold in the home market during the period of review, to be foreign like
product for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
subject merchandise sold in the United States. We relied on the
following six product characteristics to identify identical subject
merchandise and foreign like product: (1) Steel input type; (2) whether
the product was metallic-coated or not; (3) whether the product was
painted or not; (4) product perimeter; (5) wall thickness; and (6)
shape. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home
market to compare to subject merchandise sold in the United States, we
compared the 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 our antidumping
questionnaire.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and to the
extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales made in
the home market at the same level of trade as the export price or the
constructed export price. The normal-value level of trade is based on
the starting prices of sales in the home market or, when normal value
is based on constructed value, those of the sales from which we derived
selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit. See also 19
CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). For export price, the level of trade 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 review, both
Maquilacero and Regiopytsa reported only export-price sales to the
United States.
To determine if home-market sales are made at a different level of
trade than export-price sales, we examine 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 level of
trade, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences
between the sales on which normal value is based and home-market sales
made at the level of trade of the export transaction and this
difference affects price comparability, then we make a level-of-trade
adjustment to normal value under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.412.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., 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, 77 FR 32531
(June 1, 2012), citing Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maquilacero
In response to section A of the antidumping questionnaire and in
supplemental responses to the questionnaire, Maquilacero reported one
level of trade with one channel of distribution for its export-price
sales. Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed by
Maquilacero on its sales to the United States, we
[[Page 55188]]
determined that the sales were made at one level of trade.
For the home market, Maquilacero identified two channels of
distribution in its section A response as follows: (1) Direct sales
made by Maquilacero, and (2) indirect sales made by its affiliated
reseller to the first unaffiliated customer. Maquilacero reported that
the sales in both channels were made at one level of trade. Based on
our analysis of all of Maquilacero's home-market selling functions, we
found that the sales made in both channels of distribution were made at
one level of trade, the normal-value level of trade.
We then compared the selling functions performed for the sales at
the normal-value level of trade to those performed for sales at the
export-price level of trade. Based on this analysis, we preliminarily
determined that the starting price of Maquilacero's home-market sales
and its export price represented different stages in the marketing
process and were thus at different levels of trade. However, because
Maquilacero only sold at one level of trade in the home market, there
is no basis on which to determine if there was a pattern of consistent
price differences between two levels of trade in that market.
Furthermore, there is no other record evidence on which to base a
level-of-trade adjustment. Therefore, although the normal-value level
of trade differed from the export-price level of trade, we are unable
to make a level-of-trade adjustment to normal value for Maquilacero.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a more detailed discussion of this analysis, see the
``Level of Trade'' section in the Memorandum to the File for
``Analysis of Data Submitted by Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.
(Maquilacero) for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube (LWR
pipe and tube) from Mexico,'' dated August 30, 2012 (Maquilacero
Preliminary Analysis Memo), at 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regiopytsa
In its initial and supplemental responses to section A, Regiopytsa
reported one channel of distribution for its home-market sales made to
two types of customers (i.e., distributors and end-users). For all
sales made through the affiliated reseller in the home market,
Regiopytsa reported that the merchandise was resold to unaffiliated
customers. Regiopytsa reported a single level of trade in its home
market sales database. Based on our analysis of Regiopytsa's home-
market selling functions, we preliminary found that the selling
functions for the reported channel of distribution constituted one
level of trade in the home market, or the normal-value level of trade.
In the U.S. market, Regiopytsa reported one level of trade for
which there was one channel of distribution to two types of customers
(i.e., distributors and steel service centers). It reported a single
level of trade in its U.S. sales database. Based on our analysis of the
selling functions Regiopytsa performed for its export-price sales, we
determined that there was one level of trade for its U.S. sales.
Next we compared the selling functions associated with the sales at
the normal-value level of trade to those associated with the export-
price level of trade and, based on our analysis of record evidence, we
found that the degree and number of selling functions provided by
Regiopytsa for its customers in the home market was greater than the
degree to which it provided some of those selling functions to U.S.
customers. However, as with Maquilacero, we were unable to calculate a
level-of-trade adjustment because we found only one level of trade in
Regiopytsa's home market and there is no other record evidence on which
to base an adjustment. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we
matched the export-price sales to home-market sales without making a
level-of-trade adjustment to normal value.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For further discussion
of this analysis, see the ``Level of Trade'' section in the
Memorandum to the File for ``Analysis of Data Submitted by
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V. for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico,'' dated August 30,
2012 (Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo), at 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Sale
The Department will normally use invoice date, as recorded in the
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale, but may use a date other than the
invoice date if it better reflects the date on which the material terms
of sale are established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). For Maquilacero and
Regiopytsa, we found that the invoice date best reflected the date on
which material terms of sales were established with one exception.
Regiopytsa reported that it had some home-market sales for which the
invoice and shipment dates did not coincide. Based on our analysis of
the factual circumstances of these sales, we found that the material
terms of sale were in fact subject to change up until the time the
merchandise was released for shipment. Thus, for these preliminary
results, we determined that the most appropriate date of sale for these
sales was the date of shipment, as discussed in the ``Date of Sale''
section of Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo at 5.
U.S. Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price as ``the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold)
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).''
For purposes of these preliminary results, we calculated the U.S.
price as the export price for Maquilacero and Regiopytsa in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior
to importation by the producer, outside of the United States to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. For each company, we
calculated export price 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), U.S. inland freight (border to the
unaffiliated customer), country of manufacture inland insurance, and
brokerage and handling. We also made adjustments, where appropriate,
for imputed credit, certain direct selling expenses (including
commissions), and billing adjustments.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Home Market
To determine if there was a sufficient volume of sales of LWR pipe
and tube in the home market during the period of review to serve as a
viable basis for calculating normal value, we compared Maquilacero and
Regiopytsa's quantity of home-market sales of the foreign like product
to the quantity of each company's respective U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Because both
Maquilacero and Regiopytsa's aggregate quantity of home-market sales of
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of their
aggregate quantity of U.S. sales for subject merchandise, we determined
that the home market was viable for comparison purposes for both
companies, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test
Sales to affiliated customers in the home market that were not made
at
[[Page 55189]]
arm's-length prices were excluded from our analysis because we consider
them to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See section 773(f)(2)
of the Act; see also 19 CFR 351.102(b). Consistent with 19 CFR
351.403(c) and (d) and agency practice, ``the Department may calculate
normal value based on sales to affiliates if satisfied that the
transactions were made at arm's-length.'' See China Steel Corp. v.
United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1365 (CIT 2003). To test whether
the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared,
on a model-specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated
and unaffiliated customers, net of all direct selling expenses, billing
adjustments, discounts, rebates, movement charges and packing. Where
prices to the affiliated party were, on average, within a range of 98
to 102 percent of the price of identical or comparable merchandise to
the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the
affiliated party were at arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings:
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186,
69194 (November 15, 2002). Based on this analysis, Maquilacero's sales
through its affiliated reseller were made at arm's length but those
made by Regiopytsa through its affiliated reseller and to other
affiliated customers were not. Therefore, in our margin calculations,
we included Maquilacero's sales to its affiliate but excluded
Regiopytsa's sales to its affiliates.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Both respondents have had home-market sales disregarded in prior
reviews on the basis that they had sales priced below the cost of
production (COP), which were made within an extended period of time, in
substantial quantities, and at prices which permitted the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time.\8\ Thus, pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there were reasonable grounds in
the current review to believe or suspect that Maquilacero and
Regiopytsa had made sales of the foreign like product at prices below
the COP. On October 14, 2011, we therefore requested that both parties
provide cost information in response to section D of the Department's
antidumping questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ At the beginning of this review, sales for both Maquilacero
and Regiopytsa had been most recently disregarded in the 2008/2009
administrative review, as discussed in Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe
and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 55559, 55565-55566 (September 13,
2010), unchanged in Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76
FR 9547 (February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a review of the cost information provided, neither company
appeared to experience significant changes in its cost of manufacturing
(COM) throughout the period of review. Thus, we followed our normal
methodology of calculating a review-period, weighted-average cost for
each product. We relied on the COP information provided by Maquilacero
and Regiopytsa except, in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act,
we made an adjustment to Maquilacero's affiliated-party-supplied labor
costs to reflect the higher of the transfer price or COP. Because the
record did not provide market prices for these services in the market
under consideration, we used the COP of the affiliate as a proxy for
the amount representing the value of labor costs usually reflected in
the market under consideration.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For further details regarding this adjustment for
Maquilacero, see the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office
of Accounting, from Frederick W. Mines, Accountant, regarding the
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments
for the Preliminary Results--Maquilacero S.A. de C.V.'', dated
August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted, weighted-
average COP figures to the prices of home-market sales of the foreign
like product in order to determine if these sales were made at prices
below the COP. The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement
charges, packing expenses, warranty expenses, or indirect selling
expenses. In determining whether to disregard home-market sales made at
prices below their COP, we examined if such sales were made within an
extended period of time, in substantial quantities, and at prices which
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
We found that, for certain products for Maquilacero and Regiopytsa,
more than 20 percent of the home-market sales were made at prices below
the COP and that these below-cost sales were made within an extended
period of time and in substantial quantities. In addition, the sales
were made at prices that did not permit the recovery of costs within a
reasonable period of time. Thus, for both Maquilacero and Regiopytsa,
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we disregarded these
below-cost sales, and used only the remaining sales of the same product
as the basis for determining normal value.
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
We calculated the weighted-average normal value based on prices to
unaffiliated customers and those to affiliated customers that passed
the arm's-length test.\10\ We also based normal value on home-market
sales that passed the cost test. In our calculation of normal value, we
accounted for billing adjustments, discounts, and rebates, where
appropriate. We also made deductions, where applicable, for inland
freight, insurance, handling, and warehousing, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in
circumstances of sale, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
the Act. In particular, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments for
home-market direct selling expenses, such as imputed credit expenses
and warranty expenses, and certain U.S. direct selling expenses,
including commissions and warranty expenses. For Maquilacero, we
calculated home-market and U.S. warranty expenses based on a three-year
history of such expenses. See Maquilacero Preliminary Analysis Memo at
4 and 5. For Regiopytsa, we calculated U.S. warranty expenses based on
a three-year history of such expenses but, because the company does not
track warranty expenses in its normal course of business, it was unable
to provide a history of these expenses for its home market. Regiopytsa
did include refunds granted for merchandise in its reported home-market
billing adjustments. Finally, we deducted home-market packing costs and
added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ We excluded home-market sales of secondary merchandise, for
which neither Maquilacero nor Regiopytsa could provide complete
product characteristic information and which both companies reported
to be heavily discounted lot sales (i.e., sales of assorted
merchandise), from our margin-calculation analysis. For a more
detailed discussion of these sales, see Maquilacero Preliminary
Analysis Memo at 5 and 6 and Regiopytsa Preliminary Analysis Memo at
6 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more detailed information on the calculation of normal value,
see Maquilacero Preliminary Analysis Memo at 9 and 10 and Regiopytsa
Preliminary Analysis Memo at 9 and 10.
Currency Conversion
The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank.\11\ However, we note that
[[Page 55190]]
the Federal Reserve Bank does not track or publish exchange rates for
the Mexican peso. Therefore, pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we
made currency conversions from Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars based on
the daily exchange rates from Factiva, a Dow Jones & Reuters Retrieval
Service. Because Factiva only publishes exchange rates for Monday
through Friday, we used the rate of exchange on the most recent Friday
for conversion of dates involving a Saturday or Sunday. See Import
Administration Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2010,
through July 31, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Manufacturer/exporter average dumping
margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maquilacero S.A. de C.V............................... 0.00%
Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S.A. de C.V.......... 0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comments
The Department will disclose the calculations we used in our
analysis to interested parties to this review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of
publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the
Department alters the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested
parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for
submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the
argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
Parties are reminded that any requests or other submissions must be
filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System, in
compliance with the procedures set forth in Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures;
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).
An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the day of its filing.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the
issues in any such argument or at a hearing, within 120 days of the
date of publication of this notice. See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. If either Maquilacero's or Regiopytsa's weighted-average
dumping margin is above de minimis in the final results of this review,
we will calculate importer- or customer-specific ad valorem assessment
rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the importer's or customer's examined
sales made during the period of review to the total entered value of
the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). See Final
Modification for Reviews, 77 FR at 8103. Where the duty assessment
rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on
all entries of subject merchandise by that importer in accordance with
the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the
period of review that were produced by the companies included in these
preliminary results of review and for which the reviewed companies did
not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries
at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction.
In accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP on or after 41 days following the
publication of the final results of this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective, upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review, for all
shipments of LWR pipe and tube from Mexico entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date of publication of the
final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) The cash-deposit rates for the companies covered by this review
(i.e., Maquilacero and Regiopytsa) will be the rates established in the
final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50
percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in
which case the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
previous review, or the LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the
cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous
review conducted by the Department, the cash-deposit rate will be the
all-others rate of 3.76 percent, as established in the LTFV
investigation.\12\ These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, the
People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping
Duty Orders; Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the
Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45403, 45405 (August 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
[[Page 55191]]
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during
this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
duties.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-22109 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P