[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64480-64483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25963]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-523-801]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has determined
that imports of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular
welded pipe) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) are being, or are likely
to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in
the ``Final Determination'' section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: October 22, 2012
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 June 1, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register
its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of
circular welded pipe from Oman.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 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) (Preliminary Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that
``{W{time} e 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'' and that ``{W{time} e intend to issue a supplemental
questionnaire to Al Jazeera'' to solicit more information in order to
determine the appropriate date of sale.\2\ On June 6, 2012, the
Department issued Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera), the
mandatory respondent in this investigation, a third supplemental
questionnaire.\3\ On June 14, 2012, Al Jazeera submitted its response
to the third supplemental questionnaire.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Preliminary Determination at 32535.
\3\ See Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office
7, to Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG, dated June 6, 2012.
\4\ See Al Jazeera's Third Supplemental Questionnaire Response,
dated June 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted sales and
cost verifications between June 18 and 28, 2012 of the questionnaire
responses submitted by Al Jazeera. We used standard verification
procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production
records, as well as original source documents provided by the
company.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memoranda to the File entitled ``Verification of the
Sales Response of Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality
Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman,'' dated August 14, 2012;
``Verification of the Cost Response of Al Jazeera Steel Products Co.
SAOG in the Antidumping Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-
Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman,'' dated August 21,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 2, 2012, Allied Tube and Conduit and the JMC Steel Group
(collectively, Petitioners) requested a hearing pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(c).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Letter from Allied Tube and Conduit and JMC Steel
(Petitioners) to the Secretary of Commerce, dated July 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted sales and
cost verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by Al
Jazeera. We used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by the company. Based on the
Department's findings at verification, as well as the minor corrections
presented by Al Jazeera at the start of verification, on August 17,
2012, the Department requested that Al Jazeera submit revised sales
databases.\7\ On August 22, 2012, Al Jazeera timely submitted their
revised sales databases.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Letter from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office
7, to Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG, dated August 17, 2012.
\8\ See Al Jazeera's Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire Response,
dated August 22, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received case briefs from Petitioners and Al Jazeera on August
29, 2012.\9\ On September 4, 2012, Al Jazeera and Petitioners timely
submitted rebuttal comments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners,
dated August 29, 2012, and Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from
Al Jazeera, dated August 29, 2012.
\10\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners,
dated September 4, 2012, and Letter to the Secretary of Commerce
from Al Jazeera, dated September 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), withdrew its request
for a hearing on September 13, 2012.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners,
dated September 13, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is October 1, 2010, to September 30,
2011.
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
[[Page 64481]]
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;\12\ (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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this antidumping investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Issues and Decision
Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by
this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as
Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov
and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the
[[Page 64482]]
main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the
Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to Certain Bank Expenses
Related to Al Jazeera's U.S. Sales
In its section C questionnaire response, Al Jazeera reported bank
charges for its U.S. sales.\13\ However, Al Jazeera stated that it
could not trace the actual bank charges to each sale.\14\ Therefore, Al
Jazeera reported estimated bank charges based upon a percentage of the
sales price and the bank into which Al Jazeera deposited the payment
for the sale.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Al Jazeera's section B&C response, dated February 9,
2012 (BCQR) at 82.
\14\ See Memorandum to the File, from Ericka Ukrow and John K.
Drury, Case Analysts, titled ``Verification of the Sales Response of
Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Pipe From the
Sultanate of Oman,'' dated August 14, 2012 (Sales Verification
Report) at 3 and VE-1.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At verification, Al Jazeera stated that its allocation methodology
overstated the actual bank charges.\16\ As an example, Al Jazeera
submitted random U.S. sales and compared the total of the actual bank
charges for these sales to the total originally reported.\17\ The
aggregate total bank charge for the randomly selected sales was lower
than the reported total.\18\ However, in examining the individual sales
selected by Al Jazeera, we noted that half of the randomly selected
sales had bank charges which did not match the reported percentages in
the section C database.\19\ Furthermore, for another sale, we found
that some of the bank charges were mis-classified into a separate
account.\20\ Finally, one of the sales traces that we examined did not
have any bank charges associated with the sale.\21\ The other sales
traces showed a similar lack of pattern for the reported sales.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id. at 30-34 and Verification Exhibits 28, 38-46.
\22\ Id. at 32 and VE-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if (1) necessary information is not on
the record or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds
information that has been requested; (B) fails to provide information
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides further that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance upon information derived from the
petition or other information placed on the record.\23\ The SAA
explains that the Department may employ an adverse inference about the
missing information ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \24\ Importantly, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the
part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an
adverse inference.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994)
(SAA) at 870.
\24\ Id.
\25\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v.
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that that the application of facts available is appropriate
under section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act because Al Jazeera failed
properly to report certain bank expenses related to U.S. sales and,
instead, provided information that, upon examination at verification,
was irreconcilable with Al Jazeera's original reported methodology.
Further, we find that the application of AFA is appropriate under
section 776(b) of the Act because Al Jazeera failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's
request for verifiable information. As adverse facts available, the
Department has applied the highest bank charge percentage that we
examined and reconciled at verification,\26\ based on the percentage of
the sales value, to all of Al Jazeera's U.S. sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Sales Verification Report, VE-1, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, because we are relying on Al Jazeera's own information
obtained during the course of this investigation, there is no need to
corroborate this data pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at
verifications, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations
for Al Jazeera. For a discussion of these changes, see Memorandum to
the file, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, from Ericka Ukrow
and John Drury, International Trade Analysts, entitled ``Analysis of
Data Submitted by Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG in the Final
Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman'' dated October
15, 2012 (Final Analysis Memorandum); see also Memorandum to Neal M.
Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, through Michael P. Martin, Lead
Accountant, from Laurens van Houten, Senior Accountant, entitled,
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for
the Final Determination--Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG,'' dated
October 15, 2012.
In preparing for this final determination, the Department
determined that the Arm's Length Test in the SAS program was improperly
dropping certain sales from the comparison market database. We
corrected this error for the final determination. See Final Analysis
Memorandum at 8.
Final Determination
The Department determines that the following dumping margins exist
for the period October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG......................... 5.81
All Others................................................. 5.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation
of all entries of circular welded pipe from Oman which were entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 1, 2012, the
date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. We will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
following weighted-average margins, as indicated above: (1) The rate
for Al Jazeera will be the rate we have
[[Page 64483]]
determined in this final 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
5.81 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 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 we 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, 5.81 percent, for the ``all
others'' rate, as referenced above.
Disclosure
We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the
calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our
final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act the ITC will determine within 45 days whether the
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the
ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue
an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CPR 351.305. Timely notification of the
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
735(d) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.
Dated: October 15, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Date of Sale
Comment 2: Targeted Dumping
Comment 3: Hot-Rolled Steel Coil Cost and Yield Ratio
Comment 4: Model Matching Hierarchy
Comment 5: Double-Counting of Certain Export Charges
[FR Doc. 2012-25963 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P