69626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices 

1See memorandum entitled ‘‘Certain Welded 

Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From 

India—Affiliation and Whether to Collapse Two 

Separate Entities’’ dated June 7, 2010. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–947] 

Certain Steel Grating From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Correction to the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3936. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction 

On June 8, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published 

the final results of the investigation for 

certain steel grating from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Certain 

Steel Grating From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 

32366 (June 8, 2010) (‘‘Final 

Determination’’). On July 23, 2010, the 

Department published the antidumping 

duty order pursuant to the investigation. 

See Certain Steel Grating from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 43143 

(July 23, 2010) (‘‘Order’’). Subsequent to 

the announcement and release of the 

Final Determination and Order, the 

Department identified an inadvertent 

error in both Federal Register notices. 

Specifically, the Final Determination 

and Order incorrectly reversed the 

headings for the ‘‘Manufacturer’’ and 

‘‘Exporter’’ in the rate tables printed in 

the notices. As a result of these errors, 

the notices incorrectly indicated that a 

combination rate was applicable to 

Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo Haitian’’) as the manufacturer 

and Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., 

Ltd (‘‘Ningbo Lihong’’) as the exporter. 

See Final Determination, 75 FR at 

32369; see also Order, 75 FR at 43144. 

The notices should have indicated that 

Ningbo Haitian was the exporter, and 

that Ningbo Lihong was the 

manufacturer. The revised rate table 

should read as follows: 

Exporter Manufacturer 

Antidumping 

duty percent 

margin 

Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd ..................................... Sinosteel Yantai Steel Grating Co., Ltd .................................... 136.76 

Ningbo Haitian International Co., Ltd ........................................ Ningbo Lihong Steel Grating Co., Ltd ....................................... 136.76 

Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ........................................ Yantai Xinke Steel Structure Co., Ltd ....................................... 136.76 

PRC-wide Entity 1 ....................................................................... .................................................................................................... 145.18 

1 Ningbo Jiulong Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Ningbo Zhenhai Jiulong Electronic Equipment Factory and Shanghai DAHE Grating Co., 

Ltd. are part of the PRC-wide entity. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 777(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 

Dated: November 8, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. C1–2010–28688 Filed 11–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–502] 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard 

Pipes and Tubes From India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On June 14, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain welded carbon steel standard 

pipes and tubes from India. The period 

of review is May 1, 2008, through April 

30, 2009. We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results. The review covers 

nine manufacturer/exporters. Based on 

our analysis of the comments received, 

we have made certain changes for the 

final results. The final weighted-average 

dumping margins for the respondents 

are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of 

the Review’’ section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. Romani or Minoo Hatten, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0198 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

Background 

On June 14, 2010, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) published 

the preliminary results of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

welded carbon steel standard pipes and 

tubes from India. See Certain Welded 

Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes 

from India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 33578 (June 14, 2010) 

(Preliminary Results). The 

administrative review covers Jindal 

Pipes Limited, Lloyds Metals & 

Engineers Limited and Lloyds Line Pipe 

Ltd. (LMEL/LLPL),1 Lloyds Steel 

Industries Limited (LSIL), Maharashtra 

Seamless Limited, Makalu Trading Pvt. 

Ltd., Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., 

Universal Tube and Plastic Ind., Ushdev 

International Ltd., and Uttam Galva 

Steels Ltd. 

Since publishing the Preliminary 

Results, we extended the due date for 

completion of these final results from 

October 12, 2010, to November 5, 2010. 

See Certain Welded Carbon Steel 

Standard Pipes and Tubes from India: 

Extension of the Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 63439 (October 15, 2010). 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

We received timely submitted case 

briefs from LMEL/LLPL and LSIL. We 

also received a timely submitted case 

brief from Shamrock Building Materials, 

Inc., an importer of subject 

merchandise. Additionally, we received 

a timely submitted rebuttal case brief 

from a domestic interested party, Allied 

Tube and Conduit Corporation. No 

parties requested a hearing. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices 69627 

We have conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order 

include certain welded carbon steel 

standard pipes and tubes with an 

outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more 

but not over 16 inches. These products 

are commonly referred to in the 

industry as standard pipes and tubes 

produced to various American Society 

for Testing Materials (ASTM) 

specifications, most notably A–53, A– 

120, or A–135. 

The antidumping duty order on 

certain welded carbon steel standard 

pipes and tubes from India, published 

on May 12, 1986, included standard 

scope language which used the import 

classification system as defined by 

Tariff Schedules of the United States, 

Annotated (TSUSA). The United States 

developed a system of tariff 

classification based on the international 

harmonized system of customs 

nomenclature. On January 1, 1989, the 

U.S. tariff schedules were fully 

converted from the TSUSA to the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). See, 

e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel 

Standard Pipes and Tubes from India; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 FR 

26650, 26651 (June 10, 1991). As a 

result of this transition, the scope 

language we used in the 1991 Federal 

Register notice is slightly different from 

the scope language of the original final 

determination and antidumping duty 

order. 

Until January 1, 1989, such 

merchandise was classifiable under item 

numbers 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 

610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 610.3254, 

610.3256, 610.3258, and 610.4925 of the 

TSUSA. This merchandise is currently 

classifiable under HTS item numbers 

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 

7306.30.5090. As with the TSUSA 

numbers, the HTS numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes. The written product 

description remains dispositive. 

Duty Absorption 

As stated in the Preliminary Results, 

75 FR at 33580, the Department has not 

conducted a duty-absorption inquiry as 

requested in this segment of the 

proceeding because the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that 

the Department lacks the authority to 

conduct such inquiries for reviews of 

transition orders. See FAG Italia S.p.A. 

v. United States, 291 F.3d 806, 819 

(CAFC 2002). The order on certain 

welded carbon steel standard pipes and 

tubes from India is a transition order, 

having gone into effect in 1986. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

administrative review are addressed in 

the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum 

for the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes 

and Tubes from India for the Period of 

Review May 1, 2008, through April 30, 

2009’’ (Decision Memorandum) from 

Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Edward C. Yang, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated November 5, 

2010, and hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded 

is in the Decision Memorandum and 

attached to this notice as an Appendix. 

The Decision Memorandum, which is a 

public document, is on file in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit of 

the main Commerce building, Room 

7046, and is accessible on the Internet 

at http://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on the analysis of comments 

received, we have made certain changes 

since the Preliminary Results. 

Specifically, with respect to sales by 

LMEL/LLPL to trading companies, for 

export price we used the whole gross 

price as reported by LMEL/LLPL. For 

these sales to trading companies, we did 

not deduct the trading-company 

discount from the gross unit price as we 

did in the Preliminary Results because 

the trading-company discount 

represents the difference in price 

between the value paid for the goods by 

the trading company and the value that 

the trading company invoiced the final 

U.S. customer under LMEL/LLPL’s 

direction. We did not deduct bank 

charges from export price for some sales 

to Indian trading companies because 

these bank charges were billed to the 

trading company and not to LMEL/ 

LLPL. We removed the value of a credit 

memo from the numerator of the 

warranty-expense allocation and 

determined the value of this credit 

memo to be a post-sale adjustment to 

export price instead of a warranty 

expense. For transactions involved in 

this credit memo we used an average 

export price that reflects the single perunit price to which the parties agreed in 

a renegotiated sales contract. Finally, for 

the denominator of the warrantyexpense allocation we used the total 

quantity of sales during the period of 

review instead of the total quantity of 

entries. See Decision Memorandum for 

a full discussion of the issues. 

Final Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

determine that the following percentage 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist on certain welded carbon steel 

standard pipes and tubes from India for 

the period May 1, 2008, through April 

30, 2009: 

Producer and/or exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Lloyds Metals & Engineers Limited (LMEL) and Lloyds Line 

Pipe Ltd. (LLPL) ...................... 6.33 

Lloyds Steel Industries Limited 

(LSIL) ...................................... (*) 

Jindal Pipes Limited ................... 6.33 

Maharashtra Seamless Limited .. 6.33 

Makalu Trading Pvt. Ltd ............. (**) 

Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd ..... 6.33 

Universal Tube and Plastic Ind .. (*) 

Ushdev International Ltd ............ (**) 

Uttam Galva Steels Ltd .............. (**) 

* No shipments or sales subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate from any 

segment of this proceeding. 

** No shipments or sales subject to this review. This company reported that its supplier 

had knowledge that its merchandise was destined for the United States. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

For these final results, we divided the 

total dumping margins (calculated as 

the difference between normal value 

and export price) for LMEL/LLPL’s 

importers or customers by the total 

number of metric tons LMEL/LLPL sold 

to the importers or customers. We will 

direct CBP to assess the resulting permetric-ton dollar amount against each 

metric ton of merchandise in each 

importer’s/customer’s entries during the 

review period. Additionally, because we 

have collapsed LMEL and LLPL (see 

Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33581), we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of 

LLPL-produced merchandise at the 

LMEL/LLPL rate. 

The Department clarified its 

automatic-assessment regulation on May 

6, 2003. This clarification applies to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review produced by 

LMEL/LLPL for which LMEL/LLPL did 

not know its merchandise was destined 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
69628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices 

for the United States. In such instances, 

we will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries of merchandise 

produced by LMEL/LLPL at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties). 

Consistent with Assessment of 

Antidumping Duties, for companies 

which claimed they had no shipments 

of subject merchandise to the United 

States, i.e., LSIL and Universal Tube and 

Plastic Ind., if any entries of subject 

merchandise produced by these entities 

entered into the United States during 

the period of review, we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate the unreviewed entries 

of merchandise at the all-others rate. 

With respect to entries by companies 

that were not selected for individual 

examination, i.e., Jindal Pipes Limited, 

Maharashtra Seamless Limited, and 

Ratnamani Metals Tubes Ltd., we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate entries of 

merchandise produced and/or exported 

by these firms at 6.33 percent, the rate 

established for LMEL/LLPL. See 

Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 33579. 

For companies which reported that 

their supplier (LMEL) had knowledge 

that its merchandise was destined for 

the United States, i.e., Makalu Trading 

Pvt. Ltd., Uttam Galva Steels Ltd., and 

Ushdev International Ltd., and 

otherwise had no shipments or sales of 

their own, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate these entries at the assessment 

amounts applicable to LMEL/LLPL as 

discussed above. 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

final results of review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of 

these final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of certain 

welded carbon steel standard pipes and 

tubes from India entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication, as provided 

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

The cash-deposit rates for companies 

under review will be the rates listed 

above; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period for that 

company; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, a prior review, 

or the less-than-fair-value investigation 

but the manufacturer is, the cashdeposit rate will be the rate established 

for the most recent period for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if 

neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer has its own rate, the cashdeposit rate will be the all-others rate 

for this proceeding, 7.08 percent. See 

Antidumping Duty Order; Certain 

Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes 

and Tubes from India, 51 FR 17384 

(May 12, 1986). These deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notifications 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

notification of the destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: November 5, 2010. 

Edward C. Yang, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

1. Date of Sale 

2. Universe of Sales 

3. Adjustment to Sales Price 

4. Warranty Expense 

5. Trading-Company Discount 

6. Bank Charges 

7. Credit-Expense Period 

[FR Doc. 2010–28685 Filed 11–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–855] 

Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Sunset Review and 

Revocation of Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated the sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on non-frozen apple juice concentrate 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’). Because the domestic 

interested parties did not participate in 

this sunset review, the Department is 

revoking this antidumping duty order. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 5, 2000, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

certain non-frozen apple juice 

concentrate from the PRC. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain NonFrozen Apple Juice Concentrate From 

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

35606 (June 5, 2000). On November 2, 

2005, the Department published its most 

recent continuation of the order. See 

Notice of Continuation of Antidumping 

Duty Order on Certain Non-Frozen 

Apple Juice Concentrate from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 66349 

(November 2, 2005) (‘‘Notice of 

Continuation’’). On October 1, 2010, the 

Department initiated a sunset review of 

this order. See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 60731 (October 

1, 2010). 

We did not receive a notice of intent 

to participate from domestic interested 

parties in this sunset review by the 

deadline date. As a result, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), the 

Department determined that no 

domestic interested party intends to 

participate in the sunset review, and on 

October 21, 2010, we notified the 

International Trade Commission, in 

writing, that we intended to issue a final 

determination revoking this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES