[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6531-6534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3213]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-502]
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India;
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 requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes
and tubes from India. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters of
the subject merchandise. The period of review is May 1, 1996, through
April 30, 1997.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final
results of this administrative review, we will instruct the Customs
Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between
the constructed export price and normal value.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties that submit case briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and
(2) a brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Davina Hashmi at (202) 482-5760 or
Robin Gray at (202) 482-4023, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's
regulations are to the regulations, codified at 19 CFR Part 353 (April
1997).
Background
On May 2, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register an opportunity to request an
administrative review of this antidumping duty order for the period May
1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. See 62 FR 24082. On May 30, 1997, we
received a timely request for review from a respondent, Rajinder Pipes
Ltd. On May 30, 1997, the Department also received from the
petitioners, the Wheatland Tube Company, Allied Tube and Conduit, and
the Laclede Steel Company, a timely request for review of both Rajinder
and Lloyd's Metals & Engineers Ltd. On June 19, 1997, we initiated this
administrative review.
Scope of Review
The products covered by this review include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside
diameter of 0.372 inch or more but not more than 406.4 millimeters (16
inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end,
bevelled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes
are
[[Page 6532]]
generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be called
structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes
and tubes are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam,
natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air-conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and
mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection
of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.
The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those
types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe
applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical
description outlined above are included in the scope of this order,
except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.
Imports of the products covered by this review are currently
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified
information provided by Rajinder using standard verification
procedures, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. We verified Rajinder's responses from December 16 to
December 19, 1997, at its factory in Kanpur, India. Our verification
results are outlined in the verification report (January 20, 1998),
public versions of which are available in the Central Records Unit of
the Department, room B-099.
No Shipments
Lloyd's reported no shipments or sales subject to this review and
the Department has confirmed these facts with the Customs Service.
Because Lloyd's did not make any sales or shipments to the United
States during the instant review period, we have not calculated an
antidumping duty margin for the preliminary results of review with
respect to this company.
Constructed Export Price
We based our margin calculation on constructed export price (CEP)
as defined in section 772(b) of the Tariff Act because the subject
merchandise was first sold in the United States to a person not
affiliated with Rajinder after importation by Rajinder International
Inc. (RII), a seller affiliated with Rajinder.
We calculated CEP based on ex-warehouse prices from RII to the
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States (the starting price). We
made deductions for any movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. We made additional adjustments to the
starting price by deducting selling expenses associated with economic
activities occurring in the United States, including commissions,
direct selling expenses, expenses assumed on behalf of the buyer, and
U.S. indirect selling expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of
the Tariff Act, we deducted from the price an amount for profit to
arrive at the CEP.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating
normal value (NV), we compared Rajinder's volume of home-market sales
of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the
Tariff Act. Since Rajinder's aggregate volume of home-market sales of
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate
volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that
the home market was viable. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like
products were first sold for consumption in the exporting country.
Home-market prices were based on the packed, ex-factory or
delivered prices of the foreign like product to unaffiliated purchasers
in the home market. Where applicable, we made adjustments for movement
expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. We
also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act and for differences in
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act. We made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where
applicable, for home market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S.
commissions.
We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was
first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual
commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade and at the same
level of trade as the CEP, to the extent practicable in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act.
No other adjustments were claimed and/or allowed.
Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we calculate NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade as the U.S. sale. The NV level of trade is that
of the starting-price sales in the comparison market.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than that of the U.S. sale, we examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales
are at a different level of trade, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See
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).
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information from Rajinder about the marketing stages involved in the
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the
selling activities performed by Rajinder for each channel of
distribution. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same,
the functions and activities of the seller should be similar.
Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for
different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller
should be dissimilar.
Rajinder reported two channels of distribution in the home market:
(1) sales to government agencies, OEMs, and end-users (Channel One);
and (2) sales to local distributors and trading companies (Channel
Two). Based on the selling functions that occur between the two home-
market channels of distribution and other factors, such as the point in
the chain of distribution
[[Page 6533]]
where the relevant selling expenses occurred, we determined that the
two home-market channels of distribution constitute two different
levels of trade. See Memorandum from Analyst to File: Preliminary
Results of 1996-97 Administrative Review of Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from India, (February 2, 1998).
Rajinder reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market. The CEP sales
were based on sales from the exporter to Rajinder's U.S. affiliate, a
local distributor. Because the CEP sales were made through one channel
of distribution, we determined that sales through this channel
constitute a single level of trade.
In addition, we found that, based on the selling functions between
and customer categories of the CEP channel and Channel Two in the home
market, sales to Channel Two were made at the same level as the sales
to the United States. See Memorandum from Analyst to File: Preliminary
Results of 1996-97 Administrative Review of Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from India (February 2, 1998). We therefore matched the
CEP sales to home-market sales made to Channel Two, to the extent
possible. Where we found no match at the Channel Two level of trade, we
matched at the Channel One level of trade and made a level-of-trade
adjustment because the difference in levels of trade affected price
comparability.
We determined whether there was a pattern of consistent price
differences between the different levels of trade in the home market by
comparing, for each model sold at both levels, the average net price of
sales made in the ordinary course of trade at the two levels of trade.
Because the average prices are higher at one of the levels of trade for
a preponderance of the models and sales quantities, we consider this to
demonstrate a pattern of consistent price differences. Therefore, when
comparing sales at different levels of trade, we adjusted NV downward
by the average percentage difference. See Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom, 62 FR 2081, 2105 (January 15, 1997).
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act directs the Department to use a daily
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars,
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with
our practice, we have determined as a general matter that a fluctuation
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25
percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for
the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation exists, we
substitute the benchmark for the daily rate. See Policy Bulletin 96-1:
Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996).
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparisons of CEP with NV, we preliminarily
determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for
the period May 1, 1996 through April 30, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajinder Pipes Ltd........................................... 34.91
Lloyd's Metals & Engineers \1\............................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This company claimed no shipments or sales subject to this review.
Rate is from the last segment of the proceeding in which the firm had
shipments/sales.
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication of this
notice. A hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days from the date of
publication of this notice at the main Commerce Department building.
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties are due within 30 days of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case briefs, may
be submitted not later than 37 days of publication of this notice.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding
are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue
and (2) a brief summary of the argument. The Department will
subsequently publish the final results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written briefs or hearing. The Department will issue final results of
this review within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty-
assessment purposes, we calculated, on an importer-specific basis, an
assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales and dividing the amount by the total entered value of
subject merchandise sold during the period of review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the
reviewed company is the rate established in the final results of this
review; (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 prior review, or the original
less-than-fair-value (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) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 7.08
percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the final
determination of sales at LTFV, as explained in the 1995/96 new shipper
review of this order. See Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel Pipes
and Tubes From India; Final Results of New Shippers Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 47632, 47644 (September 10, 1997).
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
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'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 Tariff Act and 19 CFR 353.22(h).
[[Page 6534]]
Dated: February 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-3213 Filed 2-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P