U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4152 May 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1159 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Fred Ruggles, Investigator 

Norman VanToai, Industry Analyst 

Ioana Mic, Economist 

Mary Klir, Accountant/Auditor 

Charles St. Charles, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Lemuel Shields, Statistician 

Keysha Martinez, Investigative Intern
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4152 May 2010

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1159 (Final)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Determination .................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Appendix

A. Federal Register notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1159 (Final)

CERTAIN OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930

(19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury

by reason of imports from China of certain oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), primarily provided for in

subheadings 7304.29, 7305.20, and 7306.29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that

have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold at less than fair value.2 3

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective April 8, 2009, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Maverick Tube Corporation, Houston, TX; United

States Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA; V&M Star LP, Houston, TX; V&M Tubular Corporation of

America, Houston, TX; TMK IPSCO, Camanche, IA; Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, Pueblo, CO;

Wheatland Tube Corp., Wheatland, PA; and the United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO–CLC,

Pittsburgh, PA. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following

notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of certain OCTG from China were

being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)). Notice of the

scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigation and of a public hearing to be held in

connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register

of September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50242). Following notification of a preliminary determination by

Commerce that imports of OCTG from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section

733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)) (74 FR 59117, November 17, 2009), the Commission issued

additional scheduling dates with respect to the antidumping duty investigation (74 FR 67248, December

18, 2009). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2009, and all persons who

requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A. Williamson determine that the domestic OCTG industry is

materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from China. They make a negative finding with

respect to critical circumstances.

 3

 Chairman Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun, and

Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert determine that they would not have found material injury but for the suspension of

liquidation.
 
VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of this investigation, we determine that an industry in the

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain oil country tubular goods

(“OCTG”) from China that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be

sold in the United States at less than fair value.1

ADOPTION OF VIEWS IN EARLIER COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATION

This investigation arose out of simultaneously filed petitions seeking the imposition of

antidumping duties and countervailing duties on imports of OCTG from China. The Commission was

previously required to issue its determination in the countervailing duty investigation of OCTG from

China (in January 2010),2

 because Commerce issued its final determination in the countervailing duty

investigation3

 earlier than in the antidumping investigation.4

Under section 771(7)(G)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, we make our determination in

this investigation on the same record as that of our determination in the earlier countervailing duty

investigation, except that the record in this investigation also includes Commerce’s final determination in

the antidumping investigation of subject imports from China and the parties’ final comments concerning

the significance of that determination.5 6 7

 Based on the record in the final phase of this investigation, we

 1 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A. Williamson determine that a domestic industry is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of OCTG from China.

 2

 75 Fed. Reg. 3248 (Jan. 20, 2010), Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-463

(Final), USITC Pub. 4124 (Jan. 2010). 

 3

 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination, 74 Fed. Reg. 64045 (Dec. 7, 2009).

 4

 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 75 Fed. Reg. 30335 (Apr. 19, 2010). 

 5

 Comments on Commerce’s final determination in the antidumping investigation were filed by petitioners

Maverick Tube Corporation and United States Steel Corporation, and by Chinese producers and exporters Tianjin

Pipe (Group) Corporation; Baosteel Group Corporation; Zhejiang Jianli Group; Jiangsu Changde Steel Tube Share

Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd.; Baotou Iron & Steel (Group) Co., Ltd.; Anhui Tianda Oil Pipe Co.,

Ltd.; Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.; Shengli Oilfield Highland Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.;

Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; and Angang Steel Company Limited

(collectively, “Chinese Respondents”). 

 6

 Section 771(7)(G)(iii) provides – 

In each final determination in which it cumulatively assesses the volume and effect of imports [in

determining whether a domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports], the

Commission shall make its determinations based on the record compiled in the first investigation

in which it makes a final determination, except that when [Commerce] issues its final

determination in a subsequently completed investigation, the Commission shall permit the parties

in the subsequent investigation to submit comments concerning the significance of [Commerce’s]

final determination, and shall include such comments and [Commerce’s] final determination in the

record for the subsequent investigation.

 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(iii). Chinese Respondents assert that the record in the antidumping duty investigation ought

not to be defined or limited by section 1677(7)(G)(iii) because the Commission’s affirmative determination in the

countervailing duty investigation of OCTG from China was based on threat of material injury, whereas section

(continued...)

3
adopt the findings and analyses in our earlier countervailing duty investigation concerning OCTG from

China with respect to the domestic like product, the domestic industry, conditions of competition,

material injury, and threat of material injury.8

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing OCTG is

threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of OCTG from China that are sold in the

United States at less than fair value.9

 6 (...continued)

1677(7)(G)(iii) applies only to determinations based on material injury. Chinese Respondents are mistaken. All

Commissioners have cumulatively assessed the volume and effect of the subsidized and dumped OCTG imports for

purposes of determining material injury in these investigations. See Bingham & Taylor v. United States, 815 F.2d

1482 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-414 (Final) and 731-TA-928

(Final), USITC Pub. 3509 (May 2002) at 29. The record in the antidumping investigation, therefore, is limited by

section 1677(7)(G)(iii) to the record that was before the Commission in the countervailing duty investigation, plus

Commerce’s final determination in its antidumping duty investigation and party comments on that determination. Id.

That is, once cumulation occurs in our analysis of material injury, section 1677(7)(G)(iii) applies regardless of

whether the material injury determination is followed by assessment of threat of material injury as well. A final

determination addressing threat of material injury will always be preceded by a determination addressing present

material injury, and we have done so here by adopting our previous finding. See, generally, R-M Industries v.

United States, 18 CIT 219, 228-29, 848 F. Supp. 204, 212 (1994) (an affirmative final threat determination must

include a determination on whether present material injury exists). 

 7

 Commerce found that all of the subject imports from China were sold at less than fair value in the United States. 

75 Fed. Reg. 30335, 30340-41 (Apr. 19, 2010). For producers/exporters Tianjin Pipe International Economic and

Trading Corp.; Zhejiang Jianli Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Seamless Pipe Co., Ltd.; and all other companies that received

separate rates, Commerce found a dumping margin of 29.94 percent. For all other producers and exporters of OCTG

from China, Commerce calculated a dumping margin of 99.14 percent. Id. The Chinese Respondents and

petitioners Maverick Tube Corporation and U.S. Steel Corporation filed comments on Commerce’s final

antidumping duty determination on April 16, 2010.

 8

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A. Williamson adopt the findings and analyses in their separate

views in the earlier countervailing duty investigation concerning OCTG from China (USITC Pub. 4124 at 29-35)

and again join sections I-V of the Commission’s determination in that investigation (id. at 3-16).

 9

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A. Williamson determine that a domestic industry is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of OCTG from China. They make a negative critical circumstances finding with

respect to those subject imports from China for which Commerce made an affirmative finding of critical

circumstances in its final less than fair value determination. Between the six months pre- and post-filing of the

petition (October 2008-March 2009 and April 2009-September 2009), the relevant subject imports from China

declined by *** percent. Memorandum INV-HH-039 (Apr. 21, 2010) at Table I-2. Accordingly, they find that the

imports from China subject to Commerce’s critical circumstances determination are not “likely to undermine

seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping order to be issued.” 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i). 

4
 1

 This report uses the term “OCTG” to describe the product at issue, even though certain lower volume or

specialized forms of OCTG (drill pipe, high-chromium casing and tubing) are excluded.

 2

 The Commission transmitted its affirmative determination and views with respect to the countervailing duty

investigation concerning OCTG from China on January 13, 2010. Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from China,

Inv. No. 701-TA-463 (Final), USITC Publication 4124, January 2010, p. I-1. The Commission’s affirmative

determination was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2010 (75 FR 3248).

 3

 Commerce’s Federal Register notice of its final determination of sales at LTFV (cited in the tabulation) is

presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Maverick

Tube Corporation (“Maverick”), Houston, TX; United States Steel Corporation (“U.S. Steel”), Pittsburgh,

PA; V&M Star LP (“V&M Star”), Houston, TX; V&M Tubular Corporation of America (“V&M TCA”),

Houston, TX; TMK IPSCO, Camanche, IA; Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, Pueblo, CO; Wheatland Tube

Corp. (“Wheatland”), Wheatland, PA; and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,

Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Pittsburgh, PA,

alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by

reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of certain oil country tubular goods

(“OCTG”)1

 from China. The following tabulation provides information relating to the background of the

now-completed countervailing duty investigation,2

 as well as the antidumping duty investigation.3

Effective date Action

April 8, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the Commission's

investigation (74 FR 17514, April 15, 2009)

May 5, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation (74 FR 20671 and 74 FR 20678)

May 26, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determination (74 FR 27559, June 10, 2009)

September 15, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary CVD determination (74 FR 47210); scheduling of final phase

of Commission investigation (74 FR 50242, September 30, 2009)

November 17, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary AD determination (74 FR 59117)

December 1, 2009 Commission’s hearing

December 7, 2009 Commerce’s final CVD determination (74 FR 64045); the Commission received formal

notification of Commerce’s determination on November 30, 2009

December 30, 2009 Commission’s CVD vote

January 13, 2010 Commission’s CVD determination transmitted to Commerce (75 FR 3248, January 20,

2010)

April 19, 2010 Commerce’s final AD determination (75 FR 20335)

May 3, 2010 Commission’s AD vote

May 14, 2010 Commission’s AD determination transmitted to Commerce

The information contained in this report is intended to be used in conjunction with data presented

in the Commission’s report entitled Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from China, Inv. No. 701-TA-463

(Final), USITC Publication 4124, January 2010 (“USITC Publication 4124”) and its corresponding

confidential version contained in memorandum No. INV-GG-113, Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
 4

 Table I-1 of this report corresponds to table I-3 of USITC Publication 4124 and INV-GG-113.

 5

 These data are compiled from confidential Customs information (EDIS document no. 404538).

I-2

from China (“INV-GG-113”). No new information except for Commerce’s final affirmative

determination of sales at LTFV of OCTG from China and party comments thereon is included in the

record for this proceeding.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On April 9, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of sales at LTFV with respect to imports of OCTG from China. Table I-1 presents Commerce’s final

dumping margins with respect to imports of OCTG from China.4

Table I-1

OCTG: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Exporter

Final weighted-average

dumping margin

(percent)

Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Corp. 29.94

Zhejiang Jianli Co., Ltd. (Separate Rate Company) 29.94

Wuxi Seamless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Separate Rate Company) 29.94

All Other Separate Rate Companies1 29.94

PRC-wide (including Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd.) 99.14

 1 For a complete list of companies see the Federal Register notice of Commerce’s final determination.

Source: 75 FR 20335, April 19, 2010.

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

In its preliminary determination, Commerce concluded that “critical circumstances” did not exist

for mandatory respondent Jiangsu Chengbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. (“Changbao”), among others, but did

exist with respect to imports of the PRC-wide entity. In its final determination, however, Commerce

concluded that “critical circumstances” did exist for Changbao. Based on existing record evidence,

Changbao’s U.S. imports for October 2008-September 20095

 are included in table I-2. Table I-2 of this

report corresponds to table IV-5 of USITC Publication 4124 and INV-GG-113.

Table I-2

OCTG: U.S. imports from China subject to Commerce’s final critical circumstances determination,

by month, October 2008 - September 2009

* * * * * * *
APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 20335 

1See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination, 74 FR 59117 (November 17, 

2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Ministerial Error 

Memorandum, Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from the People’s Republic of China, Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,’’ 

dated December 3, 2009. 

3See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Amended 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 74 FR 69065 (December 30, 2009) 

(‘‘Amended Preliminary Determination’’). 

4See Memorandum regarding Resubmission of 

Comments on Surrogate Values by Jiangsu 

Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. to the Department of 

Commerce, dated March 3, 2010. 

5See Memorandum regarding OCTG from the 

PRC: Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co. Affiliations, dated 

March 2, 2010 (‘‘TPCO Affiliation Memo’’). 

6See Memorandum regarding Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China: 

Targeted Dumping – Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Changbao Precision Steel Tube 

Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Pipe (Group) Co., dated March 

2, 2010 (‘‘Targeted Dumping Memo’’). 

7See Memorandum regarding Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from the People’s Republic of China: 

Release of Customs and Border Patrol Data, dated 

March 9, 2010 (‘‘Changbao CBP information’’). 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4014, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

On March 31, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published 

a notice of amended final determination 

pursuant to final court decision for 

circular welded carbon quality steel line 

pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China. See Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Line Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Amended Final Determination Pursuant 

to Final Court Decision, 75 FR 16071 

(March 31, 2010) (‘‘Court Amended 

Final Determination’’). Subsequent to 

the publication of the notice in the 

Federal Register, we identified an 

inadvertent error. 

The Court Amended Final 

Determination states that the rate for the 

Huludao Companies (Huludao Seven 

Star Group, Huludao Steel Pipe 

Industrial Co. Ltd., and Huludao Bohai 

Oil Pipe Industrial Co. Ltd.), the 

respondent, is 33.00 percent when it 

should be 33.43 percent. Additionally it 

states that the All Others Rate is 36.53 

percent when it should be 36.74 

percent. These were both typographical 

errors. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 777(i) and 

705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended. 

Dated: April 13, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8992 Filed 4–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–943] 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Final 

Determination of Targeted Dumping 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On November 17, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its notice of 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) and 

affirmative preliminary determination of 

critical circumstances in the 

antidumping investigation of certain oil 

country tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

October 1, 2008, through March 31, 

2009. We invited interested parties to 

comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales LTFV and the 

post–preliminary memoranda. Based on 

our analysis of the comments received, 

we have made changes to our 

calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. We determine that OCTG 

from the PRC are being, or are likely to 

be, sold in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Stolz or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4474 or (202) 482– 

0414, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination on 

November 17, 2009. The Department 

subsequently issued a ministerial error 

allegation memorandum, in which it 

agreed to correct several ministerial 

errors.2 On December 30, 2009, 

pursuant to the correction of ministerial 

errors, the Department published an 

amended preliminary determination.3

Between December 7, 2009, and 

December 18, 2009, the Department 

conducted verifications of Jiangsu 

Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and 

Jiangsu Changbao Precision Tube Co., 

Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Changbao’’), and 

Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corp. and Tianjin 

International Economic and Trading 

Corp. (collectively ‘‘TPCO’’). See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

On February 22, 2010, TMK IPSCO, 

V&M Star L.P., V&M TCA, Wheatland 

Tube Corp., Evraz Rocky Mountain 

Steel, and the United States Steel 

Workers (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’) 

filed a submission with the Department 

including an affidavit by a V&M Star 

L.P. official attesting that V&M Star L.P. 

obtained and tested certain OCTG 

produced and exported by Changbao 

with the corresponding mill test 

certificate allegedly issued by Changbao. 

On March 4, 2010, Changbao filed a 

submission which it asserted included 

all laboratory test reports for all of the 

relevant OCTG addressed in Petitioners’ 

February 22, 2010 submission, to all 

customers, in all markets for the period 

of July 2008, through April 2009. The 

Department determined to accept both 

of these submissions.4

On March 2, 2010, the Department 

issued a memorandum regarding the 

affiliations of TPCO in this 

investigation.5 On March 2, 2010, the 

Department issued a memorandum 

addressing the targeted dumping 

allegation made by Petitioners in this 

investigation.6 Additionally, on March 

9, 2010, we released certain U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

information regarding entry 

documentation for sales of OCTG made 

by Changbao.7 On March 23, 2010, the 

Department released a Dunn & 

Bradstreet report related to the 

ownership of a TPCO affiliate and, on 

March 24, 2010, Petitioners also placed 

on the record a Dunn & Bradstreet report 

relating to the ownership of a TPCO 

affiliate. Also on March 25, 2010, 

Changbao submitted a document 

containing lab tests of its OCTG. We 

retained all of this information on the 

record. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination, and the post– 

preliminary affiliation and Targeted 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
20336 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 

8Memorandum from Sergio Balbontin, through 

Eugene Degnan regarding: Investigation of Certain 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values Memorandum 

for the Final Results, dated April 8, 2010 (‘‘Final SV 

Memo’’) 

Dumping Memo. Additionally, we 

invited interested parties to comment 

on, and submit new factual rebuttal 

information regarding, the Changbao 

CBP information. On March 9, 2010, 

multiple interested parties filed case 

briefs with respect to the Preliminary 

Determination, the TPCO Affiliation 

Memo and the Targeted Dumping 

Memo. On March 11, 2010, many of 

these same parties filed case briefs and 

new factual rebuttal information 

regarding the Changbao CBP 

information. These same parties filed 

rebuttal briefs on March 15, 2010. The 

Department held a public hearing on 

March 26, 2010. 

Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for 

this final determination is now April 8, 

2010. See Memorandum to the Record 

from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 

2010. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted verification of the 

information submitted by TPCO and 

Changbao for use in our final 

determination. See the Department’s 

verification reports on the record of this 

investigation in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of the main 

Department building, with respect to 

these entities. We used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Investigation of Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from the People’s 

Republic of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with 

this notice and which is hereby adopted 

by this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised and to which we 

respond in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is attached to this notice 

as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum is a public document and 

is on file in the CRU, and is accessible 

on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The 

paper copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this investigation, we 

have made the following changes: 

Surrogate Financial Ratios 

• For the final determination we have 

calculated surrogate financial ratios 

using the fiscal year 2008–2009 

financial statements of three Indian 

pipe producers: Indian Seamless 

Metal Tubes Limited; Oil Country 

Tubular Ltd.; and Tata Steel 

Limited. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 13. 

• We have made several corrections to 

the calculation of the surrogate 

financial ratios. See Final SV 

Memo.8

Company–Specific Changes Since the 

Preliminary Determination 

TPCO 

• For the final determination, we have 

calculated TPCO’s inputs of iron 

ore pellets using its market 

economy purchase price for this 

factor. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 24. 

• For the final determination, we have 

determined to value TPCO’s billets 

with data from Indonesia HTS 

category 7207.20.100. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 20. 

• For the final determination, we have 

applied partial adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) for merchandise 

TPCO shipped to Company B, 

which the Department finds is an 

affiliate of TPCO. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

31. 

• For the final determination, we have 

determined to omit transportation 

costs for TPCO’s inputs of water. 

See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 14. 

• For the final determination, we have 

valued TPCO’s inputs of natural gas 

using Gas Authority of India, Ltd. 

prices inflated to the POI. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 25. 

• For the final determination, we have 

valued microchromium and 

ferrochromium using Indian HTS 

subheadings 7202.4900 and 

7202.4100, respectively. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 26. 

• For the final determination, we have 

recalculated the surrogate value for 

iron ore powder by taking a simple 

average of two sets of financial 

statements from Indian pig iron 

producers, Kirloskar Ferrous 

Industries Limited and KIOCL 

Limited. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 27. 

• For the final determination, we have 

valued oxygen and nitrogen based 

on surrogate values derived from 

the financial statements of Bhoruka 

Gas, Ltd. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 28. 

• For the final determination, the 

Department separately valued 

domestic inland insurance for 

TPCO’s U.S. sales. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

3. 

• For the final determination, as 

partial AFA, we have valued 

TPCO’s self–produced, as well as its 

purchased, compressed air. Because 

TPCO removed the consumption 

figures for the purchased 

compressed air from its factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) database, we 

applied as the consumption rate the 

highest (originally) reported 

consumption rate for any product, 

and calculated cost based on the 

electricity consumption required to 

produce that highest consumption 

rate of compressed air. See Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 22. 

• In the Preliminary Determination we 

valued truck freight for water in the 

calculation of normal value because 

TPCO reported truck freight for 

water in its FOP database. For the 

final determination, we have 

determined that TPCO did not incur 

truck freight for water and have not 

included a value for truck freight 

for water in the normal value 

calculation. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 14. 

• For the final determination we have 

adjusted TPCO’s reported U.S. gross 

price for sales tax incurred in the 

United States to ensure that the 

gross price value would reflect the 

actual invoice price because TPCO 

reported a value for gross price that 

reflected the invoice price plus U.S. 

sales tax. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 12. 

• Based on verification findings, for 

the final determination we are 

valuing lump ore using a surrogate 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 20337 

9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296 27323 (May 19, 1997); see 

also Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations, 72 FR 20671, 20672 (May 5, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

10See Petitioners’ Letter to the Department: 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

People’s Republic of China: Request that the 

Department Collect Additional Data from the 

Respondents (May 22, 2009) 

11See 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3): Time period over 

which weighted average is calculated. When 

applying the average-to-average method, the 

Secretary normally will calculate weighted averages 

for the entire period of investigation or review, as 

the case may be. However, when normal values, 

export prices, or constructed export prices differ 

significantly over the course of the period of 

investigation or review, the Secretary may calculate 

weighted averages for such shorter period as the 

Secretary deems appropriate. 

value. Lump ore was valued at the 

Preliminary Determination using 

market economy purchase prices. 

• Based on verification findings, for 

the final determination, we are 

valuing pellets using market 

economy purchase prices. Pellets 

were valued at the Preliminary 

Determination using a surrogate 

value. 

• For the Preliminary Determination, 

World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) data 

was available for only the first five 

months of the POI, October 2008 

through February 2009. Therefore, 

for surrogate values calculated for 

the Preliminary Determination 

using WTA data, we relied on data 

from only five months of the POI. 

For the final determination, WTA 

data covering the full POI is 

available. Therefore, for surrogate 

values calculated for the final 

determination derived from WTA 

data, we have relied on WTA data 

covering the full POI. 

Changbao 

• For the final determination, we are 

denying Changbao a separate rate 

and, accordingly, have assigned 

Changbao the PRC–wide entity rate 

of 99.14 percent. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

30, see also Memorandum from 

Eugene Degnan, through Wendy 

Frankel regarding: Application of 

Total Adverse Facts Available for 

Changbao Steel Tube Co. and 

Jiangsu Changbao Precision Steel 

Tube Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated April 8, 

2010 (‘‘Changbao AFA Memo’’). 

• For the final determination, because 

Changbao is part of the PRC–wide 

entity, we have suspended 

liquidation of entries exported by 

Changbao, and determined that 

critical circumstances apply to 

Changbao’s U.S. sales. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation consists of certain OCTG, 

which are hollow steel products of 

circular cross–section, including oil 

well casing and tubing, of iron (other 

than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and 

alloy), whether seamless or welded, 

regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or 

not plain end, threaded, or threaded and 

coupled) whether or not conforming to 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) or 

non–API specifications, whether 

finished (including limited service 

OCTG products) or unfinished 

(including green tubes and limited 

service OCTG products), whether or not 

thread protectors are attached. The 

scope of the investigation also covers 

OCTG coupling stock. Excluded from 

the scope of the investigation are casing 

or tubing containing 10.5 percent or 

more by weight of chromium; drill pipe; 

unattached couplings; and unattached 

thread protectors. 

The merchandise covered by the 

investigation is currently classified in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item 

numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 

7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 

7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 

7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 

7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 

7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 

7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 

7304.29.31.10, 7304.29.31.20, 

7304.29.31.30, 7304.29.31.40, 

7304.29.31.50, 7304.29.31.60, 

7304.29.31.80, 7304.29.41.10, 

7304.29.41.20, 7304.29.41.30, 

7304.29.41.40, 7304.29.41.50, 

7304.29.41.60, 7304.29.41.80, 

7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 

7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 

7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.61.15, 

7304.29.61.30, 7304.29.61.45, 

7304.29.61.60, 7304.29.61.75, 

7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 

7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 

7306.29.10.30, 7306.29.10.90, 

7306.29.20.00, 7306.29.31.00, 

7306.29.41.00, 7306.29.60.10, 

7306.29.60.50, 7306.29.81.10, and 

7306.29.81.50. 

The OCTG coupling stock covered by 

the investigation may also enter under 

the following HTSUS item numbers: 

7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 

7304.39.00.32, 7304.39.00.36, 

7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 

7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 

7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 

7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 

7304.39.00.76, 7304.39.00.80, 

7304.59.60.00, , 7304.59.80.15, 

7304.59.80.20, 7304.59.80.25, 

7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 

7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 

7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 

7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, 

7304.59.80.70, and 7304.59.80.80. 

The HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and customs purposes 

only, the written description of the 

scope of the investigation is dispositive. 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations, we set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice.9 We received no 

comments from interested parties on 

issues related to the scope. 

Targeted Dumping 

We have analyzed the case and 

rebuttal briefs with respect to targeted 

dumping issues submitted for the record 

in this investigation. As a result of our 

analysis, the Department finds that 

TPCO engaged in targeted dumping. We 

determine that the standard average–toaverage comparison methodology does 

not account for the identified pattern of 

price differences. Accordingly, we have 

applied the alternative average–totransaction to all sales to calculate the 

dumping margin for TPCO. For further 

discussion, see Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Shorter Cost–Averaging Periods 

On May 22, 2009, Petitioners alleged 

that OCTG prices, and the cost of raw 

material inputs used to produce subject 

merchandise, decreased dramatically 

during the POI.10 Petitioners claimed 

that in similar instances in other 

proceedings, the Department has used 

shorter cost–averaging periods when 

calculating normal value (i.e., the 

Department calculated cost of 

production or constructed values on a 

quarterly basis for comparison to sales 

prices, rather than using a POI or period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) average).11

Accordingly, Petitioners requested that 

the Department require respondents to 

report their material input usage rates 

on a monthly basis for both the POI and 

the six months preceding the POI, and 

that the Department calculate normal 

value using monthly consumption 

periods and monthly surrogate values 

rather than a POI–average of inputs and 

surrogate values. 

The Department stated in the 

Preliminary Determination that the 

Department has not considered using 

shorter cost–averaging periods in non 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
20338 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 

12See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398 (December 11, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. 

13See also Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 

Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). 

market–economy (‘‘NME’’) cases, but 

only in market–economy (‘‘ME’’) cases 

where we determine that actual 

production costs changed significantly 

during the POI/POR, and where there 

was evidence of a linkage between the 

actual cost changes and the sales prices 

in a given POI/POR.12 We further stated 

that in an NME context, except in 

limited circumstances when inputs are 

purchased from ME suppliers, the 

Department calculates normal value 

using surrogate values in lieu of actual 

input costs and, thus, because the use of 

the shorter cost–averaging periods 

would not more accurately reflect 

experience of the respondent operating 

in the NME during the period under 

examination, we would continue to base 

costs on POI–average surrogate values 

rather than the shorter cost–averaging 

periods for the Preliminary 

Determination. 

We further stated that it is not clear 

how the shorter cost–averaging period 

methodology employed in ME cases can 

fit methodologically or analytically in 

an NME context, and we invited parties 

to comment on these issues and on what 

facts would warrant the use of shorter 

cost–averaging periods in this case for 

the final determination. 

Both in a January 22, 2010, 

submission, and in their case briefs, 

Petitioners argue that the Department 

should use shorter cost–averaging 

periods to calculate the margin for 

Changbao. Petitioners argue that both 

the significance aspect and the linkage 

aspect of the Department’s analysis 

regarding the use of shorter cost– 

averaging periods are met in regards to 

Changbao. Petitioners did not, however, 

address the Department’s concerns, 

expressed in the Preliminary 

Determination, regarding how the 

shorter cost–averaging period 

methodology can appropriately be 

applied in the context of an NME case. 

Neither the January 22, 2010 submission 

nor the case briefs argued for the use of 

shorter cost–averaging periods to 

calculate the margin for TPCO. 

Accordingly, because the Petitioners’ 

only argue that the Department should 

apply the shorter cost–averaging 

methodology to Changbao, and we have 

determined that Changbao is not 

entitled to a separate rate in the 

investigation, we do not address the 

issue of the use of shorter cost– 

averaging periods in this investigation. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) it is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a similar level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments and made no changes to our 

findings with respect to the selection of 

a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 

351.107(d). In the Preliminary 

Determination, we found that Changbao, 

TPCO and 37 separate rate–applicants 

demonstrated their eligibility for 

separate–rate status (collectively, 

‘‘Separate–Rate Recipients’’). For the 

final determination, we continue to find 

that the evidence placed on the record 

of this investigation by TPCO and the 

remaining Separate Rate Recipients 

demonstrate both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control, with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation and, 

thus, are eligible for separate rate status. 

Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides 

that, if an interested party: (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative forms in 

which such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

the information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘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 or the Commission, the 

administering authority or the 

Commission ..., in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’13

For this final determination, in 

accordance with sections 773(c)(3)(A) 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 20339 

14See Changbao AFA Memo. 

15See Changbao AFA Memo. 

16See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000). 

17See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9. 

18 Id. at 13-14. 

19See TPCO Final Analysis Memo. 

20See SAA at 870. 

21See id. 

22See id. 

23See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

24See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 20676. 

25See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 20674. 

and (B) of the Act and sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (D) and 776(b) of 

the Act, we have determined that the 

use of AFA is warranted for Changbao 

and the PRC wide entity as discussed 

below. 

Changbao 

The Department has determined that 

the information to construct an accurate 

and otherwise reliable margin is not 

available on the record with respect to 

Changbao because Changbao withheld 

information that had been requested, 

significantly impeded this proceeding, 

and provided information that could not 

be verified, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1) and (2)(A), (C) and (D) of the 

of Act.14 As a result, the Department has 

determined to apply the facts otherwise 

available. Further, because the 

Department finds that Changbao failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability, 

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department has determined to use 

an adverse inference when applying 

facts available in this review. In 

addition, we have concluded that the 

nature of Changbao’s unreliable 

submissions calls into question the 

reliability of the questionnaire 

responses in their entirety as submitted 

by Changbao in this investigation, 

including Changbao’s claim of eligibility 

for separate rate status. Thus, we find 

that Changbao is part of the PRC–wide 

entity for purposes of this 

investigation.15

The PRC Entity (including Changbao) 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate - the 

PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC, 

including Changbao.16 The PRC–wide 

rate applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

respondents identified as receiving a 

separate rate in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that the PRC–wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information because record evidence 

indicates there were more exporters of 

OCTG from the PRC during the POI than 

those that responded to the Quantity & 

Value questionnaire or the full 

antidumping questionnaire. Therefore, 

in the Preliminary Determination we 

treated these PRC producers/exporters 

as part of the PRC–wide entity because 

they did not demonstrate that they 

operate free of government control over 

their export activities. No additional 

information was placed on the record 

with respect to these entities after the 

Preliminary Determination. In addition, 

because the PRC–wide entity has not 

provided the Department with the 

requested information; pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 

the Department continues to find that 

the use of facts available is appropriate 

to determine the PRC–wide rate. 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. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold– 

Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products From the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also, SAA at 870. We have 

determined that, because the PRC–wide 

entity did not respond to our request for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department finds that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is warranted. As AFA, 

the Department is applying the rate 

alleged in the Petition as adjusted by the 

Department for the initiation. 

Partial AFA to TPCO 

The Department has also determined 

that necessary information regarding the 

downstream sales of TPCO’s affiliate, 

Company B, is not on the record. 

Further, TPCO failed to report 

information that had been requested and 

significantly impeded this proceeding, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and 

(2)(A), and (C) of the of Act, by not 

reporting certain downstream sales of its 

affiliate, as requested by the 

Department.17 As a result, the 

Department has determined to apply the 

facts otherwise available for the 

unreported downstream sales. Further, 

because the Department finds that TPCO 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act, the Department has determined to 

use an adverse inference when applying 

facts available in this review.18 As 

partial AFA, the Department is applying 

to the unreported sales the rate alleged 

in the Petition as adjusted by the 

Department for the initiation.19

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described in 

the SAA as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’20 The SAA 

provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value.21 The SAA 

also states that independent sources 

used to corroborate may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.22 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.23

As total AFA the Department 

preliminarily selected the rate of 99.14 

from the Petition.24 Petitioners’ 

methodology for calculating the export 

price and normal value (‘‘NV’’) in the 

Petition is discussed in the Initiation 

Notice.25 At the Preliminary 

Determination, in accordance with 

section 776(c) of the Act, we 

corroborated our AFA margin by 

comparing it to the margins we found 

for the respondents. We found that the 

margin of 99.14 percent had probative 

value because it is in the range of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
20340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 

26See Preliminary Determination. 

margins we found for the mandatory 

respondents. Accordingly, we found 

that the rate of 99.14 percent was 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Similarly, for the final determination, 

we have also corroborated our AFA 

margin by comparing it to the margins 

we found for the respondents. We find 

that the margin of 99.14 percent has 

probative value because it is in the 

range of margins we found for one of the 

mandatory respondents. Because no 

parties commented on the selection of 

the PRC–wide rate, we continue to find 

that the margin of 99.14 percent has 

probative value. Accordingly, we find 

that the rate of 99.14 percent is 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

Critical Circumstances 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that critical circumstances exist 

for the PRC–wide entity, however, we 

did not find that critical circumstances 

exist with respect to the mandatory 

respondents or the Separate Rate 

Recipients. No comments were received 

regarding the Department’s preliminary 

critical circumstances determination. 

For the reasons stated in the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

continues to find that critical 

circumstances do not exist for TPCO or 

the Separate Rate Recipients.26 We also 

continue to find that critical 

circumstances exist for the PRC entity, 

and because Changbao is now part of 

the PRC–wide entity, we also find that 

critical circumstances exist for 

Changbao. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted–average margins 

exist for the following entities for the 

POI: 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average 

Margin Percent 

Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Corporation ... Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation 29.94 

Angang Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. ........................................... Angang Steel Co. Ltd. 29.94 

Angang Steel Co., Ltd., and Angang Group International Trade 

Corporation ............................................................................... Angang Steel Co. Ltd. 29.94 

Anhui Tianda Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. ................................................... Anhui Tianda Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Anshan Zhongyou Tipo Pipe & Tubing Co., Ltd. ........................ Anshan Zhongyou Tipo Pipe & Tubing Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Baotou Steel International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd. ....... Seamless Tube Mill of Inner Mongolia Baotou Steel 

Union Co., Ltd.27

29.94 

Benxi Northern Steel Pipes Co., Ltd. .......................................... Benxi Northern Steel Pipes Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Chengdu Wanghui Petroleum Pipe Co. Ltd. ............................... Chengdu Wanghui Petroleum Pipe Co. Ltd. 29.94 

Dalipal Pipe Company ................................................................. Dalipal Pipe Company 29.94 

Faray Petroleum Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. .......................................... Faray Petroleum Steel Pipe Co. Ltd. 29.94 

Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. of Shengli Oil Field, The 

Thermal Recovery Equipment, Zibo Branch ............................ Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. of Shengli Oil 

Field, The Thermal Recovery Equipment, Zibo Branch 

29.94 

Hengyang Steel Tube Group International Trading, Inc. ............ Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd.; Hengyang Valin 

Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 

29.94 

Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd./Huludao City Steel Pipe 

Industrial Co., Ltd. .................................................................... Huludao Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd./Huludao City 

Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. 

29.94 

Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd. ............................ Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ............................ Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe Corporation .......................... Pangang Group Beihai Steel Pipe Corporation 29.94 

Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel ....................................... Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel 29.94 

Qingdao Bonded Logistics Park Products International Trading 

Co., Ltd. .................................................................................... Shengli Oilfield Highland Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.; 

Shandong Continental Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd.; 

Aofei Tele Dongying Import & Export Co., Ltd.; 

Highgrade Tubular Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; 

Cangzhou City Baohai Petroleum Material Co., Ltd. 

29.94 

Qiqihaer Haoying Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. of Northeast Special 

Steel Group. ............................................................................. Qiqihaer Haoying Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. of Northeast 

Special Steel Group 

29.94 

Shandong Dongbao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. .................................... Shandong Dongbao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.94 

ShanDong HuaBao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ..................................... ShanDong HuaBao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Shandong Molong Petroleum Machinery Co., Ltd. ..................... Shandong Molong Petroleum Machinery Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Shanghai Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp./ Shanghai 

Minmetals Materials & Products Corp. .................................... Jiangsu Changbao Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Huludao Steel 

Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd.; Northeast Special Steel Group 

Qiqihaer Haoying Steel and Iron Co., Ltd.; Beijing Youlu 

Co., Ltd. 

29.94 

Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. ............................ Shanghai Zhongyou Tipo Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Shengli Oil Field Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. .............. Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. of Shengli Oil 

Field, The Thermal Recovery Equipment, Zibo Branch; 

Faray Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.; Shengli Oil Field 

Freet Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 

29.94 

Shengli Oil Field Freet Petroleum Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. .............. Freet Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. of Shengli Oil 

Field, The Thermal Recovery Equipment, Zibo Branch; 

Anhui Tianda Oil Pipe Co., Ltd; Wuxi Fastube Dingyuan 

Precision Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 

29.94 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 20341 

28See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 

23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 

2004). 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average 

Margin Percent 

Shengli Oilfield Highland Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. .......... Tianjin Pipe Group Corp.; Goods & Materials Supply 

Dept. of Shengli Oilfield SinoPEC; Dagang Oilfield Group 

New Century Machinery Co. Ltd.;Tianjin Seamless Steel 

Pipe Plant; Baoshan Iron & Steel Co. Ltd 

29.94 

Shengli Oilfield Shengji Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. ............. Shengli Oilfield Shengji Petroleum Equipment Co., Ltd. 29.94

Tianjin Xingyuda Import and Export Co., Ltd. & Hong Kong 

Gallant Group Limited .............................................................. Tianjin Lifengyuanda Steel Group Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Tianjin Seamless Steel Pipe Plant .............................................. Tianjin Seamless Steel Pipe Plant 29.94 

Tianjin Tiangang Special Petroleum Pipe Manufacturer Co., 

Ltd. ........................................................................................... Tianjin Tiangang Special Petroleum Pipe Manufacturer 

Co., Ltd. 

29.94 

Wuxi Baoda Petroleum Special Pipe Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ... Wuxi Baoda Petroleum Special Pipe Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. 

29.94 

Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. ............................................... Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Wuxi Sp. Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ............................. Wuxi Precese Special Steel Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Wuxi Zhenda Special Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ......... Huai’an Zhenda Steel Tube Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ....................................... Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd.; Wuxi Seamless 

Special Pipe Co., Ltd. 

29.94 

Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. ....................................... Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd. 29.94 

Zhejiang Jianli Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Jianli Steel Tube Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Jianli Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Jianli Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd. 

29.94 

PRC–wide Entity* ........................................................................ ............................................................................................ 99.14 

27 In the Preliminary Determination and the Amended Preliminary Determination, we inadvertently identified the producer as Baotou Steel International Economic and Trading Co., Ltd. 

*Includes: Jiangsu Changbao Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Changbao Precision Tube Co., Ltd. and Shengli Oil Field Freet Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

of all imports of subject merchandise 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

following dates: (1) for TPCO and the 

separate rate companies, on or after 

November 17, 2010, the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register, 

(2) for the PRC–wide entity (except for 

Changbao), on or after April 19, 2009, 

which is 90 days prior to the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination (consistent with our 

finding that critical circumstances exist 

for the PRC–wide entity), and (3) for 

Changbao, which is now part of the 

PRC–wide entity, 90 days prior to the 

date of publication of this final 

determination. Because Changbao had a 

zero margin at the Preliminary 

Determination, we instructed CBP to not 

suspend liquidation of entries of 

merchandise exported by Changbao. 

Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.206(a), the Department will first 

issue suspension of liquidation 

instructions for Changbao with this final 

affirmative determination of sales at less 

than fair value and affirmative finding 

of critical circumstances. We will 

instruct CBP to continue to require a 

cash deposit or the posting of a bond for 

all companies based on the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

shown above. 

Additionally, as the Department has 

determined in its Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods From the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Countervailing Duty 

Order, 75 FR 3203 (January 20, 2010) 

(‘‘CVD Final’’) that the merchandise 

under investigation, exported by TPCO, 

benefitted from an export subsidy, we 

will instruct CBP to require an 

antidumping cash deposit or posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the NV exceeds the 

U.S. price for TPCO, as indicated above, 

minus the amount determined to 

constitute an export subsidy.28

For the two separate–rate companies 

in this investigation that also 

participated as mandatory respondents 

in the CVD investigation (i.e., Wuxi 

Seamless Oil Pipe Co., Ltd., and 

Zhejiang Jianli Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang 

Jianli Steel Tube Co., Ltd.), because it 

was determined in the CVD Final that 

these companies did not benefit from 

any export subsidy, we will not make an 

adjustment to the antidumping duty rate 

of these companies for purposes of cash 

deposits. 

For the remaining separate–rate 

companies, we will instruct CBP to 

adjust the dumping margin by the 

amount of export subsidies included in 

the All Other rate from the CVD Final. 

These suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine 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 material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
20342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 74 / Monday, April 19, 2010 / Notices 

1Consistent with the Preliminary Results, and the 

Department’s changed circumstances review of this 

order which found Ternium the successor-ininterest to Hylsa, we continue to consider Ternium 

and Hylsa as a single entity. See Preliminary 

Results; see also Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from 

Mexico, 74 FR 41681 (August 18, 2009). 

2On January 7, 2010, U.S. Steel requested an 

extension of its rebuttal brief which was granted by 

the Department. The new deadline for all parties’ 

rebuttal briefs was set for January 14, 2010.

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or 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 and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: April 8, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

I. General Issues 

Comment 1: Labor Wage Rate 

Comment 2: Application of Targeted 

Dumping 

Comment 3: Deduction of Domestic 

Inland Insurance from U.S. Price 

Comment 4: Exchange Rate Rupees to 

U.S. Dollars 

Comment 5: Deduction of Chinese VAT 

from U.S. Price 

Comment 6: Zeroing 

Comment 7: Double Counting 

II. TPCO Specific Issues 

Comment 8: Total AFA to TPCO 

Comment 9: Partial AFA for certain 

TPCO Transactions 

Comment 10: TPCO Affiliations 

III. Credit Expense 

Comment 11: Credit Expense 

IV. U.S. Price Deductions 

Comment 12: Certain Deduction from 

U.S. Price 

V. Surrogate Financial Statements 

Comment 13: Financial Statements for 

Surrogate Ratios 

VI. Transportation Costs 

Comment 14: Water Transportation 

Costs 

Comment 15: Addition of Freight Costs 

to ME Purchases 

VII. Certain Conversion Factor Issues 

Comment 16: Conversion Factors for 

Argon, Nitrogen and Oxygen 

VIII. By–Product Offsets 

Comment 17: By–product Offset for 

Steel Scrap 

IX. General Surrogate Value Issues 

Comment 18: Value of Ancillary 

Materials 

Comment 19: Value of FOPs Purchased 

through Distributor 

Comment 20: Value for Billet 

Comment 21: Value for Coal 

Comment 22: Value for Compressed Air 

Comment 23: Value for Scrap Input 

Comment 24: Value for Iron Ore Pellets 

Comment 25: Value of Natural Gas 

Comment 26: Value of Micro and Mid– 

Chromium 

Comment 27: Value of Iron Ore and Iron 

Powder 

Comment 28: Values of Oxygen and 

Nitrogen 

Comment 29: Value of Pig Iron 

X. Changbao Related Issues 

Comment 30: Total AFA to Changbao 

Comment 31: Changbao’s Sales to 

Unaffiliated PRC Trading Companies 

[FR Doc. 2010–8994 Filed 4–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–805] 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe From Mexico: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Rescission of 

Administrative Review in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On December 7, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 

from Mexico. See Certain Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From 

Mexico; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 64049 (December 7, 2009) 

(Preliminary Results). While the review 

originally covered eight companies, we 

rescinded the review with respect to all 

but the remaining three respondents. 

See Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe from Mexico: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 20919 

(May 6, 2009). We therefore treated 

Tuberia Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (TUNA), 

Ternium Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 

(Ternium) 1 and Mueller Comercial de 

Mexico, S. de R.L. (Mueller) as 

mandatory respondents for the period 

November 1, 2007, to October 31, 2008. 

Based on our analysis of the comments 

received, we have made no changes 

from the Preliminary Results. We have 

listed the final dumping margin below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maryanne Burke or Robert James, 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) 482–5604 and (202) 

482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 7, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain circular welded non-alloy 

steel pipe from Mexico for the period 

November 1, 2007, to October 31, 2008. 

See Preliminary Results. In response to 

the Department’s invitation to comment 

on the preliminary results of this 

review, petitioner United States Steel 

Corporation (U.S. Steel), and 

respondents Mueller and Ternium filed 

their case briefs on January 6, 2010. U.S. 

Steel and respondent TUNA submitted 

rebuttal briefs on January 14, 2010.2

As explained in the memorandum 

from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, the Department 

has exercised its discretion to toll 

deadlines for the duration of the closure 

of the Federal Government from 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for the 

final results of this administrative 

review is now April 13, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines As a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1