25136 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 

1The Department uses the name Golden Dragon 

when we refer to the collective group of Golden 

Dragon companies, which includes GD Affiliates. 

See ‘‘Corporate Structure’’ section below. 

2The domestic interested parties for this 

proceeding are Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland 

Copper Products, LLC, Mueller Copper Tube 

Products, Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube Company, 

Inc. (collectively, the petitioners). 

Dated: Issued this 23rd day, of April 2012. 

Donald G. Salo, Jr., 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10190 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–891] 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China; 

Extension of Time Limit for Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Hoefke or Fred Baker, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4947 or (202) 482– 

2924, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 10, 2012, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the 2009–2010 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on hand trucks 

and certain parts thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China. See Hand 

Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 1464 

(January 10, 2012) (Preliminary Results). 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results of Review 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

that the Department complete the final 

results of an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

notice of the preliminary results was 

published in the Federal Register. 

However, if it is not practicable to 

complete the review within this time 

period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

allows the Department to extend the 

time limit for the final results to a 

maximum of 180 days after the 

publication date of the preliminary 

results. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the final results 

of this review within the original time 

frame because the Department continues 

to require additional time to analyze 

issues raised in recently filed case and 

rebuttal briefs. Thus, the Department 

finds it is not practicable to complete 

this review by the current deadline (i.e., 

May 9, 2012). Accordingly, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

administrative review by an additional 

60 days (i.e., until July 8, 2012), in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

This extension is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 20, 2012. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10270 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–838] 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on seamless refined copper pipe 

and tube from Mexico for the period 

November 22, 2010, through April 30, 

2011, in response to a request from GD 

Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. (GD 

Affiliates). 

We preliminarily find that the U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise produced 

and exported by Golden Dragon 1 were 

not sold below normal value (NV). If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results, the Department will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits 

of zero percent and to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

zero or de minimis. See the 

‘‘Assessment Rate’’ section of this 

notice. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis McClure or Joy Zhang, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5973 or (202) 482– 

1168, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on seamless 

refined copper pipe and tube from 

Mexico on November 22, 2010. See 

Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube 

From Mexico and the People’s Republic 

of China: Antidumping Duty Orders and 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value From Mexico, 

75 FR 71070 (November 22, 2010). On 

May 31, 2011, the Department received 

a request from GD Affiliates in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), to 

conduct a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on seamless 

refined copper pipe and tube from 

Mexico. The Department found that the 

request for review met the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for initiation in 

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act) and 19 CFR 351.214(d), and 

initiated the review on June 30, 2011. 

See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico: Notice of Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review, 76 FR 39850 (July 7, 2011). 

On July 1, 2011, the Department 

issued its new shipper questionnaire to 

GD Affiliates. On August 22, 2011, 

Golden Dragon submitted its section A 

through D response. On September 6, 

2011, the petitioners 2 filed a cost 

allegation. On October 6, 2011, the 

Department initiated a cost 

investigation. On September 21, 2011, 

the Department issued its first 

supplemental questionnaire for sections 

A through D, to Golden Dragon, for 

which a response was filed on October 

12, 2011. On October 26, 2011, the 

petitioners requested that the 

Department rescind the review, because 

GD Affiliates was neither the producer 

nor exporter of the subject merchandise, 

and the review was not requested by 

Golden Dragon’s affiliate, Hong Kong 

GD Trading Co., Ltd., the affiliated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 25137 

3See Golden Dragon’s August 22, 2011, section A 

response at A–5 through A–8 and Exhibit A–2; 

Golden Dragon’s August 29, 2011, section D 

response at D–4 through D–5 and D–17. 

4 Id. 

5 Id. 

company that owns the subject 

merchandise, arranged for its 

production in Mexico, and sold it in the 

United States. On November 4, 2011, 

Golden Dragon responded to the 

petitioners’ request that the Department 

rescind the review. Golden Dragon 

contended that the subject merchandise 

was produced in Mexico and was 

exported from Mexico by GD Affiliates. 

Golden Dragon also contended that 

there is 100 percent common ownership 

of all Golden Dragon companies 

involved in the production in Mexico of 

the subject merchandise sold in the 

United Sates. 

The Department issued a second, 

third, and fourth supplemental 

questionnaire for section D, on 

December 21, 2011, January 30, 2012, 

and March 27, 2012. Golden Dragon 

submitted its responses to the section D 

supplemental on January 18, 2012, 

February 21, 2012, and April 6, 2012, 

respectively. 

On December 23, 2011, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results to April 23, 

2012. See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe 

and Tube from Mexico: Extension of 

Time Limits for the Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review, 76 FR 80333 (December 23, 

2011). 

Scope of the Order 

For the purpose of the order, the 

products covered are all seamless 

circular refined copper pipes and tubes, 

including redraw hollows, greater than 

or equal to 6 inches (152.4 mm) in 

length and measuring less than 12.130 

inches (308.102 mm) (actual) in outside 

diameter (OD), regardless of wall 

thickness, bore (e.g., smooth, enhanced 

with inner grooves or ridges), 

manufacturing process (e.g., hot 

finished, cold-drawn, annealed), outer 

surface (e.g., plain or enhanced with 

grooves, ridges, fins, or gills), end finish 

(e.g., plain end, swaged end, flared end, 

expanded end, crimped end, threaded), 

coating (e.g., plastic, paint), insulation, 

attachments (e.g., plain, capped, 

plugged, with compression or other 

fitting), or physical configuration (e.g., 

straight, coiled, bent, wound on spools). 

The scope of the order covers, but is 

not limited to, seamless refined copper 

pipe and tube produced or comparable 

to the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) ASTM–B42, ASTM– 

B68, ASTM–B75, ASTM-B88, ASTM– 

B88M, ASTM–B188, ASTM-B251, 

ASTM–B251M, ASTM–B280, ASTM– 

B302, ASTM–B306, ASTM–359, ASTM– 

B743, ASTM–B819, and ASTM–B903 

specifications and meeting the physical 

parameters described therein. Also 

included within the scope of the order 

are all sets of covered products, 

including ‘‘line sets’’ of seamless refined 

copper tubes (with or without fittings or 

insulation) suitable for connecting an 

outdoor air conditioner or heat pump to 

an indoor evaporator unit. The phrase 

‘‘all sets of covered products’’ denotes 

any combination of items put up for sale 

that is comprised of merchandise 

subject to the scope. 

‘‘Refined copper’’ is defined as: (1) 

Metal containing at least 99.85 percent 

by weight of copper; or (2) metal 

containing at least 97.5 percent by 

weight of copper, provided that the 

content by weight of any other element 

does not exceed the following limits: 

Element 

Limiting 

content 

percent 

by weight 

Ag—Silver ............................... 0 .25 

As—Arsenic ............................ 0 .5 

Cd—Cadmium ........................ 1 .3 

Cr—Chromium ........................ 1 .4 

Mg—Magnesium ..................... 0 .8 

Pb—Lead ................................ 1 .5 

S—Sulfur ................................ 0 .7 

Sn—Tin ................................... 0 .8 

Te—Tellurium ......................... 0 .8 

Zn—Zinc ................................. 1 .0 

Zr—Zirconium ......................... 0 .3 

Other elements (each) ............ 0 .3 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are all seamless circular hollows of 

refined copper less than 12 inches in 

length whose OD (actual) exceeds its 

length. The products subject to the order 

are currently classifiable under 

subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 

7411.10.1090 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Products subject to the order may also 

enter under HTSUS subheadings 

7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 

8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Corporate Structure 

As the petitioners point out, this new 

shipper review was requested by GD 

Affiliates. In its initial questionnaire 

response, as the petitioners noted, GD 

Affiliates identified affiliated parties 

involved with the production and sale 

of subject merchandise from Mexico. 

Specifically, GD Affiliates identified the 

following affiliated parties, which are 

all wholly owned subsidiaries of Golden 

Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, 

Inc., the corporate parent located in the 

People’s Republic of China: (1) GD 

Copper Cooperatief U.A.; (2) Hong Kong 

GD Trading Co. Ltd.; (3) Golden Dragon 

Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd.; 

(4) GD Copper U.S.A. Inc.; (5) GD 

Affiliates Servicios S. de R.L. de C.V.; 

and (6) GD Affiliates. In questionnaire 

responses, these companies are 

collectively referred to as Golden 

Dragon.3

In its responses, Golden Dragon 

explained that Hong Kong GD Trading 

Co. Ltd. buys the raw material on the 

world market and arranges to have it 

shipped to the production facility in 

Mexico, where it is converted to subject 

merchandise under consignment 

pursuant to a maquila agreement with 

GD Affiliates.4 Subsequently, finished 

merchandise is shipped to unaffiliated 

customers. The questionnaire responses 

set forth the various activities of each of 

these entities, showing they are 

operating as a single entity for purposes 

of the production and sale of subject 

merchandise from Mexico to the United 

States.5

Based upon the record of this new 

shipper review, the Department 

preliminarily determines that Golden 

Dragon is the producer and exporter of 

subject merchandise and, therefore, is 

entitled to this new shipper review. 

Bona Fides Analysis 

We preliminarily determine that these 

sales are bona fide. In considering the 

record of this review we find that there 

are a significant number of U.S. sales 

made to unaffiliated parties; these sales 

were made during and after the period 

of this review. In addition, there is no 

information indicating that sales are not 

commercially reasonable. See Tianjin 

Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 

1249 (CIT 2005). Because the 

information is business proprietary, see 

‘‘Bona Fides Analysis Memorandum’’ 

dated April 23, 2012, for a detailed 

discussion. We will consider this matter 

further for the final results. 

Period of Review 

The period of review (POR) for this 

new shipper review is November 22, 

2010, through April 30, 2011. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Golden 

Dragon’s sales of subject merchandise 

from Mexico were made in the United 

States at less than NV, we compared the 

monthly, weighted-average constructed 

export price (CEP) to the monthly, 

weighted-average NV, as described in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

25138 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 

6 In these preliminary results, the Department 

applied the weighted-average dumping margin 

calculation method adopted in Antidumping 

Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average 

Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain 

Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 

FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for 

Reviews). In particular, the Department compared 

monthly weighted-average export prices (or CEPs) 

with monthly weighted-average NVs and granted 

offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the 

calculation of the weighted-average dumping 

margin. 

the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

sections of this notice. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.414(c)(1) and (d), we compared 

CEP to the NV of the foreign like 

product in the appropriate 

corresponding calendar month.6

Product Comparisons 

Pursuant to section 771(16)(A) of the 

Act, for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to the 

U.S. sales, the Department considers all 

products, as described in the ‘‘Scope of 

the Order’’ section of this notice above, 

that were sold in the comparison or 

third-country market in the ordinary 

course of trade. In accordance with 

sections 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act, 

where there are no sales of identical 

merchandise in the comparison or thirdcountry market made in the ordinary 

course of trade, we compared U.S. sales 

to sales of the most similar foreign like 

product based on the characteristics 

listed in sections B and C of our 

antidumping questionnaire: (1) Type 

and ASTM specification; (2) copper 

alloy unified number system; (3) outer 

diameter; (4) wall thickness; (5) physical 

form; (6) temper designation; (7) bore; 

(8) outer surface; and (9) attachments. 

We found that Golden Dragon had sales 

of foreign like product that were 

identical or similar in these respects to 

the merchandise sold in the United 

States, and therefore compared the U.S. 

product with identical or similar 

merchandise sold in the home market, 

based on the characteristics listed 

above, in that order of priority. 

Date of Sale 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), the 

Department will normally use the date 

of invoice as the date of sale, unless a 

different date better reflects the date on 

which the material terms of sale are 

established. In its response to the 

Department’s questionnaire, Golden 

Dragon reported the invoice date as the 

date of sale in both markets. However, 

in section A of Golden Dragon’s 

response, Golden Dragon reported that 

the quantity of each transaction is not 

fixed until the shipment is made. In the 

case of consignment sales, when the 

product is withdrawn by a customer, the 

invoice date is the appropriate date of 

sale. See Golden Dragon’s Section A 

response, dated August 22, 2011, at 

A–17. Golden Dragon also asserted that 

the Department should compare U.S. 

sales to home market sales with the 

same metal exchange and date, because 

the invoice date alone is not an 

appropriate basis to determine the 

transaction dates to be used in the 

dumping margin calculations. Golden 

Dragon argues that the price of copper 

can fluctuate sharply on a daily basis. 

See id. See also Golden Dragon’s 

Section B response, dated August 22, 

2011, at B–19–21. However, as noted 

below, we do not find that this case 

warrants special treatment of costs 

which warrants comparison of U.S. 

sales to home market sales by invoice 

date and the same metal exchange date. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find 

invoice date to be the appropriate date 

of sale with respect to Golden Dragon’s 

sales to the U.S. and home market. 

However, during the POR, shipment 

occurred prior to invoice date for certain 

sales. Therefore, consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we used the 

shipment date as the date of sale where 

the shipment date occurs before the 

invoice date because the quantity is 

fixed at the time of shipment. See 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 18074, 18079–80 (April 

10, 2006), unchanged in Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from the 

Republic of Korea; Final Results and 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review in Part, 72 FR 

4486 (January 31, 2007), and the 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5. 

U.S. Price 

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP 

as ‘‘the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) in the United States before or after 

the date of importation by or for the 

account of the producer or exporter of 

such merchandise or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter,’’ as adjusted 

under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. 

For purposes of this new shipper 

review, Golden Dragon classified its 

U.S. sales as CEP sales because Golden 

Dragon’s U.S. affiliate is responsible for 

the sale to the unaffiliated customer. 

Since Golden Dragon’s U.S. affiliate is 

responsible for the sale to the 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States, we are treating Golden Dragon’s 

U.S. sales as CEP sales. We calculated 

CEP using the price Golden Dragon 

charged its unaffiliated customer. We 

made deductions and adjustments, 

where appropriate, from the starting 

price for international freight, inland 

insurance, U.S. warehouse expenses, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

credit expenses, inventory carrying 

costs incurred in the United States, and 

other indirect selling expenses in the 

United States associated with economic 

activity in the United States. See 

sections 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) of 

the Act. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of 

the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP 

profit. 

Information about the specific 

adjustments and our analysis of the 

adjustments is business proprietary, and 

is detailed in the Memorandum to The 

File, through James Terpstra, Program 

Manager, from Dennis McClure, 

International Trade Analyst, Analysis 

Memorandum for Golden Dragon 

Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V. for the 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review of Seamless 

Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, dated concurrently with this 

notice (Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum). 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there is 

a sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is five percent or 

more of the aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales), we compared the volume of 

Golden Dragon’s home market sales of 

the foreign like product to the volume 

of its U.S. sale of subject merchandise, 

in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Based on 

this comparison, we determined that 

Golden Dragon had sufficient sales in 

the home market to serve as a viable 

basis for calculating NV during the POR. 

See Golden Dragon’s Section A 

response, dated August 22, 2011, at 

Exhibit A–1. 

B. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the export 

price or CEP sales in the U.S. market. 

For further discussion of our LOT 

analysis, see Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

After analyzing the information on the 

record with respect to the following 

selling activities: (1) Sales Forecasting; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 25139 

7See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s August 29, 2011 

submission at A–18. 

8 Day-specific costs reported by Golden Dragon 

include metal costs specific to a particular day, a 

week-long average, a monthly average, or an average 

of months. See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s April 6, 2012 

submission at exhibit 1, data field ‘‘METALDTH.’’ 

9See Golden Dragon’s Section A response, dated 

August 22, 2011, at A–17. 

10See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s January 18, 2012 

submission at exhibit SSD–5. 

11See Golden Dragon’s January 18, 2012 

submission at 8 for a description of the hedging 

mechanism. 

12See Golden Dragon’s Section D response, dated 

August 29, 2011, at D–16. 

13See data file accompanying Golden Dragon’s 

April 6, 2012 submission titled ‘‘GDCOPHM04’’ and 

data file accompanying Golden Dragon’s February 

21, 2012 submission titled ‘‘GDCOPUS02,’’ 

respectively. 

14See, e.g., Golden Dragon’s February 21, 2012 

submission at exhibits 3SD–3, 3SD–4, 3SD–5, and 

3SD–6.1. 

(2) Strategic/Economic Planning; (3) 

Engineering Services; (4) Advertising; 

(5) Sales Promotion; (6) Packing; (7) 

Inventory Maintenance; (8) Order Input/ 

Processing; (9) Direct Sales Personnel; 

(10) Sales/Marketing Support; (11) 

Technical Assistance; (12) Manage Cash 

Discounts; (13) Pay Commissions; (14) 

Provide After-Sales Services; (15) 

Arrange Freight and Delivery; and (16) 

Negotiate, Order, and Collect Payment, 

we preliminarily find that all reported 

sales are made at the same LOT. For a 

further discussion of LOT, see ‘‘Level of 

Trade Analysis’’ section in the 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

In accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A) of the Act, to initiate a cost 

of production (COP) investigation the 

Department must have ‘‘reasonable 

grounds’’ to believe or suspect that sales 

of the foreign like product under 

consideration for the determination of 

NV have been made at prices below the 

COP of that product. An allegation will 

be deemed to have provided reasonable 

grounds if: (1) A reasonable 

methodology is used in the calculation 

of the COP including the use of the 

respondent’s actual data, if available; (2) 

using this methodology, sales are shown 

to be made at prices below the COP; and 

(3) the sales allegedly made at below 

cost are representative of a broader 

range of foreign models which may be 

used as a basis for NV. See section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act and Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the New Shipper 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon Quality Steel Products from 

Brazil, 70 FR 48668, 48670 (August 19, 

2005), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Results of New Shipper Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from Brazil, 70 FR 62297 

(October 31, 2005). The Department 

found that pursuant to 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of 

the Act, the petitioners provided, in 

their September 6, 2011, sales-belowcost allegation, a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that Golden Dragon 

was selling seamless refined copper 

pipe and tube at below the COP in the 

home market. See Memorandum to 

Melissa Skinner from the Team, The 

Domestic Producers’ Allegation of Sales 

Below the Cost of Production for GD 

Affiliates S. de R.L. de C.V., Golden 

Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, 

Inc., and GD Copper (U.S.A.), dated 

October 6, 2011. As a result, the 

Department initiated an investigation to 

determine whether Golden Dragon made 

home market sales during the POR at 

prices below COP. 

Volatility in Raw Materials 

Golden Dragon alleges that the 

volatility in daily commodity metal 

prices poses unique issues that the 

Department’s traditional antidumping 

methodology does not adequately 

address.7 Golden Dragon asserts that 

because it has shown that the company 

goes to great lengths in the normal 

course of business to eliminate all risk 

associated with metal fluctuations, the 

Department should rely on Golden 

Dragon’s reported day-specific 8 metal 

costs, rather than POR weighted-average 

metal costs for purposes of its margin 

analysis, consistent with the 

Department’s practice (see Brass Sheet 

and Strip from Germany: Amended 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 66347 

(October 28, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1 (Brass Sheet and Strip)). 

Golden Dragon claims that because of 

the risks associated with fluctuating 

copper prices, the company has 

developed a business practice where 

Golden Dragon and its customers agree 

to fix the copper price component of the 

sales of seamless copper pipe and tube 

based on published prices from a global 

commodity futures exchange, such as 

the London Metals Exchange (LME).9

The prices that Golden Dragon 

subsequently invoices its customers are 

comprised of two components, the 

agreed upon fixed metal price and a 

fabrication charge, both of which are 

listed separately on the invoice for each 

sales transaction.10 Golden Dragon 

claims that this business model, and the 

company’s metal hedging mechanism,11

allows Golden Dragon to shift the entire 

risk of fluctuating metal prices to its 

customers.12

In Brass Sheet and Strip, the 

Department found that the respondent 

obtained metal neutrality as a result of 

its business practice of purchasing the 

same quantity of metal at the same 

metal price (e.g., LME price) for the 

same day (‘‘metal fixation day’’) as the 

sale price of the metal agreed to with its 

customer (i.e., metal price reflected on 

the respondent’s sales invoice to the 

customer). In those instances where the 

purchase quantity and sales quantity of 

metal differed on a given day (metal 

fixation date), the difference in quantity 

was hedged. Because the Department 

found that the respondent’s sales and 

purchases were specifically linked on a 

daily basis through back-to-back 

physical purchases or hedging 

transactions in Brass Sheet and Strip, 

the Department determined that the 

reliance on the respondent’s reported 

day-specific metal costs was warranted. 

As such, the Department departed from 

its normal practice of calculating a 

weighted-average POR metal cost and 

relied instead on the reported dayspecific metal costs. 

In the instant case, Golden Dragon 

claims that Hong Kong GD Trading Co., 

Ltd.’s metal purchasing and hedging 

mechanism is identical to the Brass 

Sheet and Strip respondent’s metal 

purchasing and hedging practices. As 

such, the Golden Dragon asserts that the 

Department should rely on Golden 

Dragon’s reported day-specific metal 

costs consistent with Brass Sheet and 

Strip. We disagree. The record evidence 

submitted by Golden Dragon does not 

show that the quantities of metal 

reported for specific metal fixation dates 

for Golden Dragon’s sales to customers 

in Mexico and the United States were 

specifically linked on a daily basis 

through back-to-back physical 

purchases or hedging transactions. For 

example, for home market and U.S. 

sales 13 with metal fixation dates 

occurring on specific days within 

December 2010, we were unable to 

reconcile the sales quantities to the 

purchasing and hedging transaction 

information submitted by Golden 

Dragon for the month of December 

2010.14 Because the record evidence in 

this case fails to demonstrate that 

Golden Dragon is able to maintain 

complete metal cost neutrality, similar 

to the respondent in Brass Sheet and 

Strip, we preliminarily find that the 

reliance on a daily metal cost 

methodology is not warranted. 

Therefore, we have relied on our normal 

practice of calculating a POR weightedaverage cost of metal for our preliminary 

analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

25140 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 

15 In these preliminary results, the Department 

applied the assessment rate calculation method 

adopted in Final Modification for Reviews, i.e. on 

the basis of monthly average-to-average 

comparisons using only the transactions associated 

with that importer with offsets being provided for 

non-dumped comparisons. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated Golden 

Dragon’s COP based on the sum of 

materials and conversion for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for general 

and administrative expenses and 

interest expenses (see ‘‘Test of 

Comparison Market Sales Prices’’ 

section, below, for treatment of home 

market selling expenses). We revised 

Golden Dragon’s reported metal costs to 

reflect the weighted-average metal 

consumption cost for the POR. We 

recalculated the per-unit cost of services 

provided to GD Affiliates by Hong Kong 

GD Trading Co., Ltd., and Golden 

Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) 

International, Ltd. by applying the 

reported services ratio to the per-unit 

total cost of manufacturing rather than 

the per-unit direct material costs as 

reported by Golden Dragon. Details 

regarding the calculation of COP, 

including adjustments made to the COP 

reported by Golden Dragon, as well as 

other calculation details can be found in 

the Golden Dragon Preliminary Cost 

Memorandum. See Cost of Production 

and Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—G.D. Affiliates S. de R.L. de 

C.V., Golden Dragon Precise Copper 

Tube Group, Inc., and GD Copper (USA) 

from LaVonne Clark to Neal Halper, 

dated concurrently with this notice. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, pursuant 

to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, in 

order to determine whether the sale 

prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices (inclusive of 

billing adjustments, where appropriate) 

were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, discounts, direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act whether: (1) within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities; and (2) such sales 

were made at prices which permitted 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time in the normal 

course of trade. In accordance with 

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, 

where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given product are at prices less than the 

COP, we do not disregard any belowcost sales of that product because we 

determine that in such instances the 

below-cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product are at prices less than 

the COP, we disregard the below-cost 

sales when: (1) they were made within 

an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act; and (2) based on our comparison of 

prices to the weighted-average COPs for 

the POR, they were at prices which 

would not permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of Golden 

Dragon’s home market sales were at 

prices less than the COP and, in 

addition, such sales did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

these sales and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for determining NV, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We calculated NV for Golden Dragon 

on the reported packed, delivered 

prices, FOB plant, or delivered to the 

customer’s warehouse and sold on a 

consignment basis to comparison 

market customers. We made deductions 

from the starting price, where 

appropriate, for billing adjustments, 

early payment discounts, credit 

expenses, and inland freight, pursuant 

to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

We added U.S. packing costs and 

deducted home market packing costs, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B)(i) of the Act. We also made 

adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the home market or the 

United States where commissions were 

granted on sales in one market but not 

in the other, the ‘‘commission offset.’’ 

Specifically, where commissions are 

incurred in one market, but not in the 

other, we will limit the amount of such 

allowance to the amount of either the 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

one market or the commissions allowed 

in the other market, whichever is less. 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 

based this adjustment on the difference 

in the variable cost of manufacturing for 

the foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.415(a) based on the exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales 

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), that the following 

weighted-average dumping percentage 

margin exists for Golden Dragon for the 

period November 22, 2010, through 

April 30, 2011: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Golden Dragon ........................... 0.00 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of this new shipper 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions for Golden Dragon directly 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

new shipper review. 

If Golden Dragon’s weighted-average 

dumping margin is above de minimis in 

the final results of this review, we will 

calculate an importer-specific 

assessment rate on the basis of the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the importer’s 

examined sales and the total entered 

value of the sales in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).15 We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if the importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Notices 25141 

without regard to antidumping duties 

any entries for which the assessment 

rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 

0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash 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 new shipper review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The 

cash deposit rate for subject 

merchandise that is manufactured by 

Golden Dragon and exported by Golden 

Dragon established in the final results of 

this new shipper review, except no cash 

deposit will be required if its weightedaverage dumping margin is de minimis 

(i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, but was covered in a previous 

review or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, 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 

previous review, or the original 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 and/or 

exporters of this merchandise, shall be 

26.03 percent, the all-others rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and 

Tube From Mexico and the People’s 

Republic of China: Antidumping Duty 

Orders and Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value From Mexico, 75 FR 71070 

(November 22, 2010). These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Further, effective upon publication of 

the final results, we intend to instruct 

CBP that importers may no longer post 

a bond or other security in lieu of a cash 

deposit on imports of seamless refined 

copper pipe and tube from Mexico, 

manufactured by Golden Dragon and 

exported by Golden Dragon. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

public announcement. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Unless notified by the 

Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs, may be filed 

not later than five days after the 

deadline for filing the case briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding 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. 

Additionally, parties are requested to 

provide their case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs in electronic format (e.g., 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Adobe 

Acrobat, etc.). 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the case and rebuttal 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this review, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any written briefs, within 90 days of 

signature of these preliminary results, 

unless the final results are extended. 

See section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) 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 new shipper review is issued 

and published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act, as well as 19 CFR 351.214(i). 

Dated: April 23, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10241 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–428–815, A–580–816] 

Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Germany and South 

Korea: Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary and Final Results of Third 

Antidumping Duty Sunset Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 27, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis McClure or James Terpstra at 

202–482–5973 or 202–482–3965, 

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. 

Background 

On January 3, 2012, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) initiated 

the third sunset reviews of the 

antidumping duty (AD) orders on 

corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 

products (CORE) from Germany and 

South Korea (Korea), pursuant to section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Initiation of 

Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 77 FR 85 

(January 3, 2012). Within the deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i), the 

Department received notices of intent to 

participate, in both sunset reviews, on 

behalf of United States Steel 

Corporation, Nucor Corporation, and 

ArcelorMittal Steel USA (collectively, 

domestic interested parties). Each 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a 

producer of domestic like product. The 

Department received timely substantive 

responses from the domestic interested 

parties. On February 22, 2012, after 

analyzing the substantive and rebuttal 

responses of interested parties, 

consistent with 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), the Department 

determined to conduct expedited sunset 

reviews of these AD orders on the basis 

that no respondent interested party 

submitted a substantive response in 

either review. 

On February 14, 2012, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice entitled Antidumping 

Proceedings: Calculation of the 

Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain 

Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final 

Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 

2012) (Final Modification for Reviews). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES