[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33084-33088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2887]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-489-501)
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by domestic interested parties,
Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation (``Allied Tube'') and Wheatland
Tube Company (``Wheatland''), the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube (``welded pipe
and tube'') from Turkey. This review covers the following two
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise: (1) the Y[uuml]cel
Group (``Y[uuml]cel''), which includes [Ccedil]ayirova Boru Sanayi ve
Ticaret A.S. (``[Ccedil]ayirova'') and its affiliate, Y[uuml]cel Boru
Ithalat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.S. and (2) the Borusan Group
(``Borusan''). We preliminarily determine that both Y[uuml]cel and
Borusan made sales below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties based on
the difference between the export price (``EP'') and the NV.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, George McMahon,
or Martin Claessens, at (202) 482-4161, (202) 482-1167, or (202) 482-
5451, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on welded pipe and tube from Turkey. See 51
FR 17784 (May 15, 1986). On May 3, 2004, the Department published a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this
order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
69 FR 24117 (May 3, 2004). On May 28, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), domestic interested parties Allied Tube and Wheatland
requested a review of Y[uuml]cel and Borusan.
On June 30, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation
of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded pipe
and tube from Turkey, covering the period May 1, 2003, through April
30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 39409
(June 30, 2004). On November 1, 2004, the Department extended the
deadline for the preliminary results until no later than May 31, 2005.
See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Extension of
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 69 FR 63366 (November 1, 2004).
On August 4, 2004, the Department sent an antidumping duty
administrative review questionnaire to Y[uuml]cel.\1\ In the cover
letter, the Department erred in asking Y[uuml]cel to respond to section
D of the questionnaire. In its questionnaire response, Y[uuml]cel
reported section D data. Subsequently, on January 6, 2005, a Department
official spoke with counsel for Y[uuml]cel about the error, and counsel
for Y[uuml]cel decided to leave the section D information on the
record. Counsel for Y[uuml]cel stated that he was amenable to leaving
the cost data on the record without prejudice to Y[uuml]cel's rights
vis-[agrave]-vis the requirement of a cost allegation. See Memorandum
to The File dated January 6, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The questionnaire consists of sections A (general
information), B (sales in the home market or to third countries), C
(sales to the United States), D (cost of production/constructed
value), and E (cost of further manufacturing or assembly performed
in the United States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted a sales verification of Y[uuml]cel's questionnaire
responses from April 4 through April 8, 2005.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, not more than
406.4 millimeters (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall
thickness, surface finish (black, or galvanized, painted), or end
finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded and coupled). Those pipes and
tubes are 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 these products are currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
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 HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), we verified the information provided by
Y[uuml]cel. We used standard verification procedures, including an
examination of the relevant sales and financial records. Our
verification results are detailed in the company-specific verification
report placed in the case file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''),
room B-099 of the main Department building. We made minor revisions to
certain sales and cost data based on verification findings with the
[[Page 33085]]
exception of warranties, discussed below. See the Y[uuml]cel
Verification Report, May 25, 2005, and Calculation Memorandum, May 31,
2005, in the CRU.
Product Comparisons
We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and
Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with section
771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to match contemporaneous sales
of products sold in the United States and comparison market that were
identical with respect to the following characteristics: (1) grade; (2)
nominal pipe size; (3) wall thickness; (4) surface finish; (5) end
finish. When there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home
market to compare with U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales with the most
similar merchandise based on the characteristics listed above in order
of priority listed.
Export Price
Because both Y[uuml]cel and Borusan sold subject merchandise
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior
to importation, and constructed export price methodology was not
otherwise warranted based on the record facts of this review, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP as the basis for
all of Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's sales.
We calculated EP using, as starting price, the packed, delivered
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made the following deductions
from the starting price (gross unit price), where appropriate: foreign
inland freight from the mill to warehouse to port, foreign brokerage
and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and other
related charges. In addition, we added duty drawback to the starting
price, having found preliminarily that such an adjustment was warranted
under the standard two-prong test. See Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v.
United States, Slip Op. 05-56 (May 12, 2005).
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Market
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared both Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's volume of home-market sales
of the foreign like product to their respective volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the
Act. Because both Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's aggregate volume of home-
market sales of the foreign like product were greater than five percent
of their respective company's aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determined that each home market was viable. We
calculated NV as noted in the ``Calculation of NV Based on Comparison
Market Prices'' and ``Calculation of NV Based on Constructed Value''
sections of this notice.
B. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis
Because the Department disregarded sales below the COP in the last
completed review of Borusan, we have reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for
the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices
below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP
investigation of sales by Borusan in the home market. See Notice of
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 65 FR 48843 (August 11, 2004)
(``Final Results, Turkey'').
1. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
COP based on the sum of Borusan's costs of materials and fabrication
employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general,
and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and the cost of all expenses
incidental to packing and preparing the foreign like product for
shipment.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home-market sales
of the foreign like product as required by section 773(b) of the Act,
in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below
the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home-
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates,
discounts, packing, and direct selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices
less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that
product because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' We found that, for certain products, more
than 20 percent of Borusan's home-market sales were sold at prices
below the COP. Further, we found that the prices for these sales did
not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis and used the
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
C. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices
For Borusan, for those comparison products for which there were
sales at prices above the COP, we based NV on home-market prices. No
allegation was submitted that Y[uuml]cel made sales below the COP; and
therefore, we did not conduct a sales-below-cost test on Y[uuml]cel's
sales. In these preliminary results, for Borusan, we were able to match
all U.S. sales to contemporaneous sales, made in the ordinary course of
trade, of either an identical or a similar foreign like product, based
on matching characteristics. For Y[uuml]cel, we based NV on home-market
prices. For U.S. sales that we could not appropriately match to
contemporaneous home-market sales, we used constructed value. For both
Borusan and Y[uuml]cel, we calculated NV based on free on board
(``FOB'') mill/warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers,
or prices to affiliated customers which were determined to be at arm's
length (see discussion below regarding these sales). We made
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for discounts,
rebates, inland freight, and pre-sale warehouse expense. Additionally,
we added billing adjustments and interest revenue. In accordance with
section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home-market packing costs and
added U.S. packing costs.
In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we
adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale (``COS''). These
circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses and other
direct selling expenses. We also made adjustments, where appropriate,
for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and for differences in the level of trade
(see discussion below regarding level of trade). Calculation of NV
Based on Constructed Value (``CV'')
For Y[uuml]cel, when we could not determine the NV based on
comparison market sales because there were no contemporaneous sales of
a comparable product, we compared the EP to CV. In accordance with
section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the sum
[[Page 33086]]
of the cost of manufacturing (``COM'') of the product sold in the
United States, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing
costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based
SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred by Y[uuml]cel in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the comparison market.
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV for COS
differences, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred on comparison market sales and adding U.S. direct selling
expenses.
Adverse Facts Available
In accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department has
determined that the use of facts available is appropriate for the
treatment of warranty expenses for purposes of determining the
preliminary results for the subject merchandise sold by Y[uuml]cel.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides: If an interested party (A)
withholds information that has been requested by the administrating
authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for
the submission of the information or in the form and the manner
requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides
such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in
section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination under this title. Moreover, section 776(b) of the Act
provides that: If the administering authority finds that an interested
party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with a request for information from the administering
authority, the administering authority, in reaching the applicable
determination under this title, may use an inference that is adverse to
the interests of the party in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available.
Y[uuml]cel failed to report warranty expenses properly in the home
market and did not provide such information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the form and the manner requested.
The Department gave Y[uuml]cel several opportunities to report warranty
expenses properly in the WARRH data field. Specifically, the Department
issued Y[uuml]cel two supplemental questionnaires in addition to the
initial sections A-C of the questionnaire. Despite these opportunities,
the Department discovered at verification that Y[uuml]cel failed to
report warranties to certain customers in its original submissions. In
addition, the Department found that the original data reported by
Y[uuml]cel included warranties for customers that were not identified
in the database (i.e., customers to whom Y[uuml]cel did not sell
subject merchandise in the home market during the POR). Y[uuml]cel had
the opportunity and ability to report warranty expenses properly;
however, it failed to do so in the initial questionnaire response and
subsequent supplemental questionnaire responses.
Although Y[uuml]cel presented the correction to home-market
warranty expenses at the onset of verification, the Department did not
verify this information. In accordance with Department practice,
Y[uuml]cel's verification outline clearly states the following:
``{p{time} lease note that verification is not intended to be an
opportunity for submitting new factual information. New information
will be accepted at verification only when (1) the need for that
information was not evident previously, (2) the information makes minor
corrections to information already on the record, or (3) the
information corroborates, supports, or clarifies information already on
the record.'' See Y[uuml]cel's Verification Outline, dated March 25,
2005, at page 2.
Based on the fact that Y[uuml]cel repeatedly reported incorrectly
its warranty expense data until the beginning of verification, the
Department is rejecting Y[uuml]cel's belated correct reporting of
warranty expenses. See Y[uuml]cel's Verification Report, dated May 31,
2005, in the CRU.
As stated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC''), ``if a respondent 'fails to provide {requested{time}
information by the deadlines for submission,' Commerce shall fill in
the gaps with 'facts otherwise available.' The focus of subsection (a)
is respondent's failure to provide information. The reason for the
failure is of no moment. As a separate matter, subsection (b) permits
Commerce to 'use an inference that is adverse to the interests of {a
respondent{time} in selecting from among the facts otherwise
available,' only if Commerce makes the separate determination that the
respondent 'has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply.' The focus of subsection (b) is respondent's failure
to cooperate to the best of its ability, not its failure to provide
requested information.'' See Nippon Steel Corporation vs. United
States, 37 F. 3d 1373 (August 8, 2003) (``Nippon Steel'').
In Nippon Steel, the CAFC held that ``the statutory mandate that a
respondent act to the 'best of its ability' requires the respondent to
do the maximum it is able to do.'' See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382.
Y[uuml]cel's actions fell well below the standard of doing the
maximum it was able to do. It failed to properly evaluate and submit
the requested information in its initial questionnaire response, and
failed twice more despite specific follow-up questioning by the
Department. Indeed, Y[uuml]cel's untimely presentation of requested
information regarding warranties at the beginning of verification
demonstrated that it would have been able to provide the Department
with the information requested, if it had exercised the requisite
effort. However, Y[uuml]cel's failure to do so by the deadlines for
submission demonstrates it did not act to the best of its ability.
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department
has determined that the use of facts available is appropriate with
respect to Y[uuml]cel's warranty expenses in the home market. Pursuant
to section 776(b)(3) of the Act, we have used an adverse inference by
not accepting Y[uuml]cel's warranty expenses in the home market.
Arm's-Length Sales
We included in our analysis Y[uuml]cel's and Borusan's home-market
sales to affiliated customers only where we determined that such sales
were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to prices
at which Y[uuml]cel and Borusan, respectively, sold identical
merchandise to their unaffiliated customers. Each respondent's sales to
affiliates constituted less than five percent of overall home-market
sales. To test whether the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-
length prices, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated
and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct selling
expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to that affiliated
party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price
of the same or comparable merchandise sold 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 (November 15, 2002).
[[Page 33087]]
Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, at 829-831 (see H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d
Sess. 829-831 (1994)), to the extent practicable, the Department
calculates NV based on sales at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as
U.S. sales, either EP or CEP. When the Department is unable to find
sale(s) in the comparison market at the same LOT as the U.S. sale(s),
the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at
different LOTs. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the
home market. To determine whether home-market sales are at a different
LOT than U.S. sales, 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 LOT and the differences affect 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 LOT of
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In implementing these principles, we examined information from each
respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in the reported
home-market and EP sales, including a description of the selling
activities performed by each for each channel of distribution. We
determined that with respect to Y[uuml]cel's sales, there was one home
market LOT and one U.S. LOT, and with respect to Borusan's sales, there
were two home-market LOTs and one U.S. LOT.
For home-market sales, we found that Y[uuml]cel sold mill-direct,
FOB, without the use of a selling agent. In some cases, Y[uuml]cel
arranged for freight; however, the purchaser took possession of the
merchandise upon loading in all cases. No additional services were
undertaken by Y[uuml]cel.
Y[uuml]cel's U.S. sales were made at only one LOT. Selling
functions were limited to maintaining stock until full container loads
were produced, and arranging for shipment of the merchandise to the
United States. Y[uuml]cel's U.S. sales were made-to-order, with title
passing to the purchaser when the goods passed the ship's rail. No
other sales activities were undertaken by Y[uuml]cel.
Because Y[uuml]cel's sales functions in each market were nearly
identical, we have determined that the LOT in each market is the same
and therefore have made no LOT adjustments in comparing its U.S. and
home-market sales.
With regard to Borusan, we examined information from the respondent
on the marketing stages involved in the reported home-market and EP
sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by
Borusan for each channel of distribution. Consistent with the prior
reviews of this respondent, we determined that with respect to
Borusan's sales, there were two home-market LOTs and one U.S. LOT
(i.e., the EP LOT). See Final Results, Turkey, 65 FR 48843. For home-
market sales, we found that Borusan's back-to-back sales by affiliated
resellers and mill-direct sales comprised one LOT. We found that
Borusan's inventory sales by affiliated resellers warranted a separate
LOT. Back-to-back sales by affiliated resellers are sales by Borusan
through an affiliated selling agent. Such sales are very similar to
mill-direct sales; however, the affiliated agent arranges for freight.
The affiliated agent does not take possession of the merchandise; it is
transferred directly from the mill to the final customer. For mill-
direct sales, Borusan provided customer advice, product information and
technical services, warranty services, and advertising. For back-to-
back sales by affiliated resellers, the resellers engage in marketing
activities and make freight arrangements, and warranty services are
provided by the mill. For inventory sales by affiliated resellers, the
resellers have a sales staff that sells Borusan products out of the
reseller's warehouse. Those resellers maintain such warehouses, provide
product information, and customer advice. Warranty services for these
sales were provided by the mill.
The first main difference between Borusan's inventory sales by
affiliated resellers and Borusan's mill-direct and back-to-back sales
is off-site warehouse maintenance and operation. Borusan's affiliated
resellers that sell from inventory operate their own warehouses.
Second, for its back-to-back and mill-direct sales, Borusan transfers
the title of the merchandise directly and immediately to the first
unaffiliated customer, but Borusan cannot perform such a transfer of
title in its sales out-of-inventory by affiliated resellers. Last,
Borusan provides discounts for both mill-direct and back-to-back sales,
but provides only very limited discounts for inventory sales.
Borusan's U.S. sales were made at only one LOT. The selling
functions for U.S. sales included customer advice and product
information, warranty services, and freight and delivery arrangements.
Borusan's sales to the United States were not made out of warehouses.
This LOT is most similar to the first LOT in the home market (mill-
direct and back-to-back sales).
Where possible, we compared U.S. sales to sales at the identical
home-market LOT mill-direct sales and back-to-back affiliated reseller
sales. If no match was available at the same LOT, we compared sales at
the U.S. LOT to sales at the second home-market LOT.
To determine whether an LOT adjustment was warranted, we examined
the prices of comparable product categories, net of all adjustments,
between sales at the two home-market LOTs we had designated. We found a
pattern of consistent price differences between sales at these LOTs.
In making the LOT adjustment, we calculated the difference in
prices between the two home-market LOTs. Where U.S. sales were compared
to home-market sales at a different LOT, we adjusted the home-market
price by the amount of this calculated difference.
Currency Conversion
The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track
or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made
currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow
Jones Business Information Services.
Section 773A(a) 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.'' It is the Department's practice
to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs
from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as
the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days. When we
determine that a fluctuation existed, we generally utilize the
benchmark rate instead of the daily rate, in accordance with
established practice.
Date of Sale
In the home market, Y[uuml]cel reported its date of sale based on
the invoice date. However, for sales to the United States, Y[uuml]cel
reported its date of sale based on the ``order confirmation date,''
which Y[uuml]cel refers to as its ``contract date.'' Y[uuml]cel
indicated that its ``order confirmation'' constitutes the acceptance of
an offer made by its U.S. customers which was made in the form of a
purchase order. See Y[uuml]cel's supplemental questionnaire response
dated February 24, 2005, at pages 24-25. During verification,
Y[uuml]cel reported that it confirms orders via e-mail and that
[[Page 33088]]
Y[uuml]cel maintains a file that documents the order confirmations for
each of its sales to the United States. At verification, the Department
attempted to corroborate this claim by verifying a sample of the order
confirmations, which would enable a comparison to the reported shipment
sale dates. However, Y[uuml]cel was unable to produce all the e-mail
confirmations requested by the Department and Y[uuml]cel was unable to
substantiate its claim that order confirmation date (``contract date'')
was representative of the date on which the material terms of sale were
finalized. Therefore, for purposes of the preliminary results, we have
used the invoice date reported by Y[uuml]cel as the basis for
Y[uuml]cel's U.S. date of sale.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period May 1, 2003, through April 30,
2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y[uuml]cel.......................................... 12.11
Borusan............................................. 0.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this
notice. See section 351.224(b) of the Department's regulations.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date
of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue,
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such
comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this notice. See section 351.310(c) of
the Department's regulations. If requested, a hearing will be held 44
days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday
thereafter. 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 written comments or hearing, within
120 days from publication of this notice.
Assessment
Pursuant to section 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations, the
Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject
merchandise. Upon completion of this review, the Department will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all entries of subject
merchandise by those importers. We have calculated each importer's duty
assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total calculated
entered value of examined sales. Where the assessment rate is above de
minimis, the importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all
entries made during the POR.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication
of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
welded pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the
companies listed above will be the rates established in the final
results of this review, except if the rates are less than 0.5 percent
and, therefore, de minimis, 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 prior review, or the 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) if neither the exporter nor
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review or
the LTFV investigation conducted by the Department, the cash deposit
rate will be 14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's
regulations 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 27, 2005.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-2887 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S