[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10772-10775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-830]
Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From Thailand: Amended Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: February 26, 2014.
SUMMARY: On January 7, 2014, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary
determination that welded stainless pressure pipe (``WSPP'') from
Thailand 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'').\1\ On January 3, 2014,
Ametai Co., Ltd. and Thareus Co., Ltd. (``Ametai/Thareus'') notified
the Department that it was withdrawing its participation from the LTFV
investigation. Based on the circumstances described below, the
Department is amending the Preliminary Determination. This amended
preliminary determination results in revised antidumping duty margins
and cash deposit rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe From Thailand:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 812 (January 7, 2014)
(``Preliminary Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations,
Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0182.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On December 13, 2013, Petitioners alleged that Ametai/Thareus
misled the Department concerning certain affiliation allegations
regarding Ametai/Thareus.\2\ On December 18, 2013, the Department
issued Petitioners a letter requesting clarification regarding certain
affiliation allegations in their December 13, 2013, submission.\3\ On
December 20, 2013, Petitioners filed their response to the Department's
December 18, 2013, letter.\4\ Additionally, on December 18, 2013, the
Department issued Ametai/Thareus a supplemental questionnaire regarding
certain affiliation issues.\5\ On December 24, 2013, and December 30,
2013, Ametai/Thareus responded to the Department's December 18, 2013,
supplemental questionnaire.\6\ In the Department's Preliminary Decision
[[Page 10773]]
Memorandum, we stated that we intended to continue exploring the
affiliation issue for the final determination.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Submission from Petitioners, ``Welded Stainless Pressure
Pipe from Thailand: Comments on Section D,'' dated December 13,
2013. Petitioners filed their affiliation allegations on December
13, 2013 through Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA
ACCESS'') under the one day lag rule; therefore, for the
Department's consideration, the official version of this submission
is dated December 13, 2013, although Petitioners filed the final
version with a date of December 16, 2013.
\3\ See Letter from the Department to Petitioners, ``Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from
Thailand: Clarification Supplemental Questionnaire on December 16,
2013, Section D comments,'' dated December 18, 2013. The
Department's December 18, 2013, letter was in response to
Petitioners' December 13, 2013, filing but dated December 16, 2013.
\4\ See Submission from Petitioner, ``Welded Stainless Pressure
Pipe from Thailand: Thareus: Petitioners' Response to Department's
December 18, 2013 Questionnaire,'' dated December 20, 2013.
\5\ See Letter from the Department to Thareus, ``Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe from
Thailand: Third Section A Supplemental Questionnaire,'' dated
December 18, 2013.
\6\ See Submissions from Ametai/Thareus, ``Welded Stainless
Steel Pressure Pipe From Thailand; Antidumping Duty Investigation;
Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response,'' dated December 24,
2013, and ``Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe From Thailand;
Antidumping Duty Investigation; Section A Supplemental Questionnaire
Response,'' dated December 30, 2013.
\7\ See ``Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination
of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe
From Thailand,'' (``Preliminary Decision Memorandum'') from Abdelali
Elouaradia, Director, Office IV, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated December 30,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing Ametai/Thareus' December 24, 2013, and December 30,
2013, supplemental questionnaire responses, and Petitioners' December
13, 2013, and December 20, 2013, affiliation allegations, it was clear
that there were unresolved affiliation issues. However, before we could
issue an additional supplemental questionnaire, on January 3, 2014,
Ametai/Thareus withdrew from participating in this investigation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Submission from Ametai/Thareus, ``Welded Stainless
Pressure Pipe from Thailand: Notice of Intent Not to Participate in
Antidumping Duty Investigation and Request of Removal from Public
and APO Service Lists,'' dated January 3, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2014, we published our Preliminary Determination. In
the Preliminary Determination, the Department calculated a 7.16 percent
margin for Ametai/Thareus, and included Ametai/Thareus' 7.16 percent
preliminary margin in calculating the ``all others'' rate. On January
9, 2014, Petitioners stated that there were ``strong indications of
fraud and certification violations'' and requested that the Department
amend its Preliminary Determination and apply adverse facts available
(``AFA'') to Ametai/Thareus because they had significantly impeded the
Department's investigation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Submission from Petitioners, ``Welded Stainless Pressure
Pipe from Thailand: Thareus: Request for Amended Preliminary
Determination,'' dated January 9, 2014 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the Department notes the following facts in this case: (1)
Petitioners made certain affiliation allegations regarding Ametai/
Thareus; (2) the Department issued Ametai/Thareus a supplemental
questionnaire in response to Petitioners' affiliation allegations, to
which Ametai/Thareus responded on December 24, 2013, and December 30,
2013; (3) after analyzing Ametai/Thareus' December 24, 2013, and
December 30, 2013, responses, the Department determined that an
additional supplemental questionnaire to Ametai/Thareus on certain
affiliation issues was required in order to clarify the record; (4) on
January 3, 2014, before we could issue the questionnaire, Ametai/
Thareus withdrew from participating in this investigation; (5) in the
Preliminary Determination, the Department included Ametai/Thareus' 7.16
percent margin in calculating the ``all others'' rate; and (6) any
change to Ametai/Thareus' preliminary margin will have a significant
impact on the ``all others'' rate. In light of these facts, the
Department finds it necessary to issue an amended preliminary
determination.
Period of the Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2012, through
March 31, 2013. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was
May 2013.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is circular welded
austenitic stainless pressure pipe not greater than 14 inches in
outside diameter. For purposes of this investigation, references to
size are in nominal inches and include all products within tolerances
allowed by pipe specifications. This merchandise includes, but is not
limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-312
or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign
specifications. ASTM A-358 products are only included when they are
produced to meet ASTM A-312 or ASTM A-778 specifications, or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Welded stainless mechanical
tubing, meeting ASTM A-554 or comparable domestic or foreign
specifications; (2) boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, refining
furnace, feedwater heater, and condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A-249,
ASTM A-688 or comparable domestic or foreign specifications; and (3)
specialized tubing, meeting ASTM A269, ASTM A-270 or comparable
domestic or foreign specifications.
The subject imports are normally classified in subheadings
7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 7306.40.5064, and
7306.40.5085 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). They may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 7306.40.1010,
7306.40.1015, 7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 7306.40.5080, and
7306.40.5090. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record or an interested party: (A) Withholds
information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that
cannot be verified, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that 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, the Department
may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses,
subject to section 782(e) of the Act, as appropriate. Pursuant to
section 782(e) of the Act, 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; and (5) the information can be used without
undue difficulties.
On January 3, 2014, Ametai/Thareus informed the Department that it
would not continue to participate in the instant investigation.
Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act, facts available
is warranted in calculating the antidumping duty margin for Ametai/
Thareus. We determined that Ametai/Thareus significantly impeded the
proceeding by ceasing to participate in the instant investigation prior
to the Department issuing an additional supplemental questionnaire on
certain affiliation issues, thus preventing the Department from
gathering additional facts on these affiliation issues and clarifying
the record. Additionally, by ceasing its participation, Ametai/Thareus
prevented the Department from conducting verification of the
information the company submitted. For these reasons, we find that the
use of facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of
the Act is appropriate in determining the
[[Page 10774]]
applicable dumping margin for Ametai/Thareus.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information.\11\ In
the instant case, we determined that applying section 776(b) of the Act
is warranted for Ametai/Thareus. This determination is based on the
fact that Ametai/Thareus' withdrawal from participation prevented the
Department from fully investigating certain affiliation allegations and
verifying the information submitted to the Department, thus
constituting a failure of Ametai/Thareus to cooperate to the best of
its ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from
the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-20
(October 16, 1997); Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States,
343 F. Supp.2d 1242 (CIT 2004) (approving use of AFA when respondent
refused to participate in verification); see also Statement of
Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as AFA,
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the
Department selects one that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate
the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to
provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a
timely manner.'' \12\ It is the Department's practice to select, as
AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or
(b) the highest calculated rate for any respondent in the
investigation.\13\ Accordingly, to ensure that the non-cooperative
party, Ametai/Thareus, does not benefit from its lack of participation,
and to select a sufficiently adverse rate to induce cooperation in the
future, for the amended preliminary determination, we selected the
higher of either the highest margin alleged in the petition or the
highest weighted-average calculated rate for any respondent in the
investigation. The weighted-average margins for Ametai/Thareus and the
other mandatory respondent, Thai-German Products Public Company Limited
(``TGP''), in the Preliminary Determination were less than the 24.01
percent margin from the petition. Therefore, consistent with its
practice, the Department selected the highest margin alleged in the
petition, which is 24.01 percent, as the AFA rate assigned to Ametai/
Thareus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
\13\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183, 2185
(January 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
submitted to satisfy ourselves that the secondary information has
probative value.\14\ In this instant case, to corroborate the 24.01
percent margin used as AFA for Ametai/Thareus, we relied on the pre-
initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in
the petition as well as transaction-specific margins \15\ for mandatory
respondent TGP from the Preliminary Determination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel
Products From Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000).
\15\ These transaction-specific dumping margins are based on
TGP's sales of subject merchandise during the period under
consideration. Therefore, the transaction-specific dumping margins
higher than the petition rate of 24.01 percent reflects dumping that
has already occurred and are based on rates using TGP's pricing and
cost information that was provided in this segment of the
proceeding.
\16\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Imports of Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from Malaysia, Thailand,
and Vietnam, dated May 16, 2013 (Petitions); see also Supplement to
the Thailand Petition, dated May 24, 2013; Welded Stainless Pressure
Pipe From Malaysia, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 78 FR 35253 (June 12,
2013) (``Initiation Notice''); Antidumping Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from Thailand
(``Thailand Checklist'') dated June 5, 2013; TGP Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum, dated December 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the initiation stage, we examined evidence supporting the
calculations in the petition and the supplemental information provided
by Petitioners to determine the probative value of the margins alleged
in the petition.\17\ 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.\18\ Also, during our pre-initiation analysis, we
examined information from various independent sources provided either
in the petition or, based on our requests, in supplements to the
petition, which corroborated key elements of the export price and NV
calculations.\19\ Therefore, for the final determination, the
Department finds that the rates derived from the petition for purposes
of initiation have probative value for the purpose of being selected as
the AFA rate assigned to Ametai/Thareus. In addition, transaction-
specific margins from TGP from the Preliminary Determination which are
higher than the petition rate of 24.01 percent also corroborate the
petition rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Thailand Checklist.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Others Rate
The ``All Others'' rate is derived exclusive of all de minimis or
zero margins and margins based entirely on AFA. In the Preliminary
Determination, the Department calculated the ``all others'' rate, in
part, based on Ametai/Thareus' Preliminary Determination rate. In light
of Ametai/Thareus' withdrawal from the investigation and the
Department's subsequent application of total AFA, this methodology for
calculating the ``all others'' rate is no longer appropriate. In this
case, there is another mandatory respondent, TGP, which received a
calculated rate. Therefore, consistent with Department practice, we
will apply TGP's rate as the ``all others'' rate in this amended
preliminary determination.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, 74 FR
16843 (April 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended Preliminary Determination Margins
The Department determined that the following amended preliminary
dumping margins exist for the POI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Manufacturer/exporter dumping margin
(%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ametai Co., Ltd./Thareus Co., Ltd.................... 24.01
Thai-German Products Public Company Limited.......... * 10.92
All Others........................................... 10.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Unchanged from the Preliminary Determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of
all entries of WSPP from Thailand, as described in
[[Page 10775]]
the scope of the investigation section, entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a
cash deposit \21\ equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV
exceeds Export Price, as indicated in the chart above. These suspension
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of
Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042
(October 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our amended preliminary
determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will
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 WSPP from Thailand, or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within
45 days of our final determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
Dated: February 20, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-04222 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P