Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
On June 1, 2012, the Department published in the
On June 8, 2012, we placed on the record of this investigation a memorandum describing a revision to the methodology announced in our preliminary determination for calculating the rate assigned to cooperative respondents not selected for individual analysis.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted sales and factors of production (FOP) verifications of the questionnaire responses submitted by SeAH Steel VINA Corporation (SeAH VINA) and Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Haiphong Hongyuan) as well as their respective U.S. affiliates. We used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the company.
On June 29, 2012, SeAH VINA, pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.310(c), requested a hearing. On July 2, 2012, Allied Tube and Conduit, and the JMC Steel Group (petitioners), also, requested a hearing pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.310(c). On September 21, 2012, and September 24, 2012, SeAH VINA and petitioners, respectively, withdrew their requests for a hearing.
On July 11, 2012, petitioners and Haiphong Hongyuan submitted surrogate values with which to value factors in the final determination.
We received case briefs from petitioners, SeAH VINA, Haiphong Hongyuan, and Sun Steel Joint Stock Company (SUNSCO) on September 11, 2012. On September 17, 2012, petitioners, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong Hongyuan filed rebuttal briefs.
On September 21, 2012, the Department placed on the record of the investigation back-up documentation to support the surrogate value it used for brokerage and handling in the preliminary determination, and invited interested parties to submit comments on that documentation. We received comments from Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA on September 25, 2012, and rebuttal comments from petitioners on September 27, 2012.
The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2011, to September 30, 2011.
This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (
Subject pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications. Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications. These products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, is also covered by the scope of this investigation when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (
The scope of this investigation does not include: (a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished electrical conduit; (c) finished scaffolding;
The pipe subject to this investigation is currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum From Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verifications, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations for SeAH VINA and Haiphong Hongyuan. For a discussion of these changes,
As stated in the preliminary determination, all separate rates the Department now assigns to exporters will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the POI.
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to governmental control, and because only the companies listed under the “Final Determination Dumping Margins” section, below, have overcome that presumption, we are assigning a single weighted-average dumping margin (
In the preliminary determination, the Department determined that there were exporters/producers of the merchandise subject to this investigation during the POI from Vietnam that did not respond to the Department's request for information.
In the preliminary determination, the Department also determined that, in selecting from the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate because the Vietnam-wide entity failed to co-operate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As adverse facts available (AFA), we preliminary assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity a rate of 27.96 percent, the highest margin alleged in the petition, as corrected by the Department at our initiation of this investigation.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if 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, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. 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.
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse “so as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.”
In the preliminary determination, the Department selected as AFA, a rate of 27.96 percent, the highest margin alleged in the petition, as corrected by the Department at our initiation of this investigation.
We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the following entities for the POI:
We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative and in accordance with section 735(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CPR 351.305. Timely notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(l) of the Act.