[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-28828] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: November 22, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-502] Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, domestic producers of standard pipe products, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The review period is March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. This review involves one manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise to the United States, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai). As a result of the review, we have preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist with respect to this manufacturer/exporter. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Yacura or Zev Primor, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482- 5253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 12, 1993, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register notifying interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative review of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (57 FR 13583). On March 30, 1993, the domestic producers (Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular Division of Armco, Inc., American Tube Company, Inc., Laclede Steel Company, Sharon Tube Company, Wheatland Tube Company, and Eagle Pipe Company) requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) of the Department's regulations, that we conduct an administrative review for the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. We published a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960). The Department is now conducting a review for this period in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Review The products covered by this administrative review are shipments of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural tubing,'' are hereinafter designated as ``pipe and tube.'' The merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. The item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. The review covers shipments made by Saha Thai from Thailand to the United States during the period of review March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993 (POR). United States Price In calculating U.S. price (USP), the Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation. Purchase price was based on the packed FOB or C&F price to unrelated purchasers in the United States. The review included all of Saha Thai's U.S. sales that entered the United States during the POR. We made deductions from the unit price, where applicable, for ocean freight, bank charges, foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and customs clearing expenses (brokerage). We made an addition to USP for duty drawback. Additionally, we adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in Siliconmanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994. No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed. Foreign Market Value In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of pipe and tube in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating foreign market value (FMV), we compared the volume of home market sales to the volume of third-country sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Saha Thai had sufficient home market sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, we based FMV on Saha Thai's sales in the home market. We did not include home market sales of pipe and tube made to the specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM pipe) in our FMV calculation because we determined that such sales were outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 U.S.C. 1677(15) and 1677b(a)(1). Rather, we included only sales of pipe and tube made to British Standard specifications (BS pipe). In determining that Saha Thai's sales of ASTM pipe in the home market were outside the ordinary course of trade, we did not rely on one factor taken in isolation, but rather considered all the circumstances particular to the sales in question. In reviewing the evidence for this review, we based our decision upon (1) the different standards and product uses of ASTM pipes and BS pipes; and (2) the comparative volume of sales and number of buyers of ASTM pipes and BS pipes in the home market during the POR. Saha Thai indicated that the ASTM pipes sold in the home market during the POR were produced on the basis of special orders or special projects in which the entire project was supplied with ASTM standard pipes. In addition, ASTM pipes and BS pipes cannot be coupled together. Therefore, ASTM pipe cannot be used in most pipe systems in Thailand and cannot be used to replace most existing pipe systems in Thailand. Finally, sales of ASTM pipe constituted a small volume of total Saha Thai's sales of pipe and tube in the home market, and the customers purchasing ASTM pipe in the home market were limited primarily to new, stand-alone government projects. Accordingly, we determined that sales of ASTM pipe in the home market were outside the ordinary course of trade, and therefore did not use these sales in our calculation of FMV. Based on findings in the 1988-89 review that home market sales of the subject merchandise were made by Saha Thai at prices below the cost of production (COP), the Department conducted a cost investigation in this review. In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 353.51 of the Department's regulations, we examined whether home market sales were made below cost and in substantial quantities over an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. We calculated Saha Thai's COP as the sum of all reported materials costs, labor expenses, factory overhead, and general and selling expenses for the three types of pipe and tube that were sold in the home market during the POR (galvanized plain-end, black plain-end, and galvanized threaded-and-coupled). We compared COP to home market prices net of discounts, foreign inland freight, and an adjusted business tax, or value-added tax, depending on the time of sale. For each model where less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each model where 10 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales during the POR were priced below the merchandise's COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were below the merchandise's COP, provided that these below-cost sales were made over an extended period of time. For each model where 90 percent or more of the home market sales during the POR were priced below the COP and were made over an extended period of time, we disregarded all sales of that model from our calculation of FMV and used the constructed value (CV) of those models as described below. To determine whether sales below cost had been made over an extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below cost occurred for a particular type of pipe and tube to the number of months in which that type was sold. If the type was sold in fewer than three months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that type in each month sold. If a type was sold in three or more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below cost in at least three of the months in which the type was sold. Since Saha Thai has not submitted any information indicating that any of its sales below cost were at prices which would have permitted ``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade,'' as required by section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we are unable to conclude that the costs of production of such sales have been recovered within a reasonable period. As a result, we disregarded below-cost sales made over an extended period of time. Using the remaining sales, the Department calculated FMV on a monthly weighted-average basis. Home market prices were based on the price to unrelated purchasers. Where applicable, we made adjustments for transportation discounts, foreign inland freight, packing expenses, and business tax, or value-added tax, depending on the date of sale. We also made adjustments to FMV for differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, packing, credit expenses, and warranty expenses. We used CV as FMV to compare to those U.S. sales for which there were insufficient home market sales at or above the COP. Pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.50(a) of the Department's regulations, CV consisted of the sum of materials, overhead, labor, U.S. packing, general and administrative expenses, and profit for each of the four types of pipe and tube sold in the United States during the POR (black plain-end, galvanized plain-end, galvanized threaded-and- coupled, and black threaded-and-coupled). Since Saha Thai's actual selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and actual profits were greater than the statutory minima for SG&A and profit as provided in section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act, we used the SG&A and profit reported by Saha Thai. We adjusted CV for selling, credit, and packing expenses. Preliminary Results As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping margin to be: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Margin Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd......... 3/1/92-2/28/93 5.83 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs or comments. The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Saha Thai will be that established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or previous reviews, the cash deposit will continue to be the rate published in the final determination or the last final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of this review, a previous review, or the original investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others rate'' from the LTFV investigation. On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and Federal-Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined that, in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for correction for clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty orders for the purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 15.67 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the Department's final determination of sales at LTFV (51 FR 3384, January 27, 1986). There is a countervailing duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (50 FR 32751, August 15, 1985). In accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act, entries subject to both antidumping duties and countervailing duties will not be assessed antidumping duties on the portion of the margin attributable to export subsidies. Because the amount of countervailing duties to be imposed on entries during the POR has yet to be determined, we cannot at this time make the appropriate adjustment. However, to ensure that the appropriate adjustment is made, upon issuing our final results of the administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs not to assess antidumping duties on the margin attributable to export subsidies for the POR. This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary of the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22. Dated: November 14, 1994. Susan G. Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 94-28828 Filed 11-21-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P