77838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

no later than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues 

raised in the case briefs and may be 

filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting 

arguments in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

(1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief 

summary of the argument, and (3) a 

table of authorities, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties 

submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs 

are requested to provide the Department 

with an additional electronic copy of 

the public version of any such 

comments on a computer diskette. Case 

and rebuttal briefs must be served on 

interested parties in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.303(f). 

An interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 

ordinarily will be held two days after 

the due date of the rebuttal briefs in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, unless extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 

19 CFR 351.213(h). 

Assessment Rate 

Upon completion of the final results 

of this administrative review, the 

Department shall determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), the Department will 

calculate importer-specific assessment 

rates for each respondent based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

Where the respondent did not report the 

entered value for U.S. sales, we have 

calculated importer-specific assessment 

rates for the merchandise in question by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer and dividing this amount by 

the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on the 

estimated entered value. Where the 

assessment rate is above de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to assess duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by the respondents subject to 

this review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise which it sold to an 

intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading 

company, or exporter) was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

if there is no rate for the intermediary 

involved in the transaction. For a full 

discussion of this clarification, see id. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

To calculate the cash deposit rate for 

Koehler, we divided its total dumping 

margin by the total net value of its sales 

during the review period. 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of lightweight thermal 

paper from Germany entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 

of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for 

companies subject to this review will be 

the rate established in the final results 

of this review, except if the rate is less 

than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required; (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 final results for a review 

in which that manufacturer or exporter 

participated; (3) if the exporter is not a 

firm covered in this review, a prior 

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

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent final results for the manufacturer 

of the merchandise; and (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this review, the cash 

deposit rate will be 6.50 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV 

investigation. See Antidumping Duty 

Orders: Lightweight Thermal Paper from 

Germany and the People’s Republic of 

China, 73 FR 70959 (November 24, 

2008). These cash deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary 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 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: December 7, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31370 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–580–809] 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

From the Republic of Korea: 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on circular 

welded non-alloy steel pipe (‘‘CWP’’) 

from the Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’). 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 

November 1, 2008, through October 31, 

2009. This review covers multiple 

exporters/producers, three of which are 

being individually reviewed as 

mandatory respondents. We 

preliminarily determine the mandatory 

respondents made sales of the subject 

merchandise at prices below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). We have assigned the 

remaining respondents the weightedaverage of the margins calculated for the 

mandatory respondents. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77839 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Montoro, Matthew Jordan, or 

Joshua Morris, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 1, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–0238, (202) 482–1540, or (202) 482– 

1779, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 2, 1992, the Department 

published an antidumping duty order 

on CWP from Korea. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Brazil, the Republic of Korea 

(Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and 

Amendment to Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 

1992) (‘‘CWP Order’’). 

On November 30, 2009, SeAH Steel 

Corporation (‘‘SeAH’’) timely requested 

an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CWP from 

Korea for the period November 1, 2008, 

through October 31, 2009. Also on 

November 30, 2009, Wheatland Tube 

Company (‘‘Wheatland’’) and United 

States Steel Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’), 

manufacturers of the domestic like 

product, also timely requested a review. 

U.S. Steel requested the Department 

conduct an administrative review of the 

following producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise: SeAH; Hyundai HYSCO; 

Husteel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Husteel’’); Nexteel 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Nexteel’’); Kumkang 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kumkang’’); and 

A–JU Besteel Co., Ltd. Wheatland 

requested the Department conduct an 

administrative review of SeAH. On 

December 23, 2009, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CWP from 

Korea. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 68229 (December 23, 2009) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On January 26, 2010, SeAH withdrew 

its request for review. On March 23, 

2010, Wheatland withdrew its request 

for a review of SeAH. 

In our initiation notice, we indicated 

that we would select mandatory 

respondents for review based upon CBP 

data, and that we would limit the 

respondents selected for individual 

review in accordance with section 

777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation 

Notice, 74 FR at 68229. On January 6, 

2010, we received comments on the 

issue of respondent selection from 

Kumkang. 

On February 18, 2010, after 

considering the resources available to 

the Department, we determined that it 

was not practicable to examine all 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise for which a review was 

requested. As a result, we selected the 

two largest producers/exporters of CWP 

from Korea during the POR for 

individual review in this segment of this 

proceeding, pursuant to section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. These 

mandatory respondents were Nexteel 

and SeAH. See Memorandum from 

Yasmin Nair and Matthew Jordan, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

to Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, ‘‘Respondent 

Selection: Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea,’’ dated February 18, 

2010. 

On January 14, 2010, Wheatland 

submitted a request for a duty 

absorption determination for a number 

of producers or exporters subject to this 

review, including SeAH, Husteel, and 

Nexteel. The Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit found that the 

Department lacks authority to conduct 

two-and four-year duty absorption 

inquiries for transitional orders (orders 

in effect before January 1, 1995). See 

FAG Italia S.p.A. v. United States, 291 

F.3d 806, 819 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Since the 

order for this case is from 1992, we have 

not conducted a duty absorption inquiry 

in this proceeding. 

On January 15, 2010, and January 22, 

2010, Hyundai HYSCO submitted letters 

to the Department stating it had no 

exports, sales, or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. 

On February 19, 2010, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to Nexteel 

and SeAH. On March 9, 2010, Husteel 

requested the Department to reconsider 

its decision to limit the review to two 

mandatory respondents or, in the 

alternate, to treat Husteel as a voluntary 

respondent. On March 25, 2010, we 

received a section A questionnaire 

response from Husteel (‘‘Husteel A QR’’). 

On March 26, 2010, we received a 

section A questionnaire response from 

SeAH (‘‘SeAH A QR’’). On March 29, 

2010, we received a section A 

questionnaire response from Nexteel 

(‘‘Nexteel A QR’’). 

On March 29, 2010, we selected 

Husteel as a third mandatory 

respondent. See March 29, 2010 letter 

from Susan Kuhbach, Director, Office of 

AD/CVD Operations 1, to Husteel Co., 

Ltd., ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea: Request for Selection 

as Mandatory Respondent; Request for 

Voluntary Respondent Treatment.’’ See 

also Memorandum from Matthew 

Jordan, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, Office 1, AD/CVD Operations, 

to the File, ‘‘Selection of Husteel Co., 

Ltd., as Third Mandatory Respondent,’’ 

dated March 30, 2010. 

We received a response to sections B, 

C, and D of the questionnaire from 

SeAH on April 12, 2010. We received a 

response to sections B, C, and D of the 

questionnaire from Husteel on April 21, 

2010. We received a response to 

sections B and C of the questionnaire 

from Nexteel on April 27, 2010 

(‘‘Nexteel B&C QR’’). 

On June 17, 2010, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire 

regarding section D of the initial 

questionnaire to Husteel and received a 

response on July 22, 2010. On July 7, 

2010, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire regarding 

section D of the initial questionnaire to 

SeAH and received a response on 

August 4, 2010. 

On September 27, 2010, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires for 

sections A, B, and C to Nexteel, Husteel, 

and SeAH. We received a response from 

SeAH on October 26, 2010, and 

responses from Nexteel and Husteel on 

November 2, 2010 (‘‘Husteel November 

Supplemental Response’’). 

On October 11, 2010, the Department 

issued a second supplemental 

questionnaire for section D to SeAH. We 

received a response from SeAH on 

October 21, 2010. 

On November 5, 2010, the Department 

issued second supplemental 

questionnaires for sections A, B, and C 

to Husteel and SeAH. The Department 

received responses from SeAH and 

Husteel on November 12, 2010. 

On November 12, 2010, the 

Department issued a third supplemental 

questionnaire for sections A, B, and C to 

SeAH. The Department received a 

response from SeAH on November 19, 

2010. 

On July 13, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

extension of the time limit for the 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review until no later than December 

7, 2010, in accordance with section 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). See Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of 

Korea: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

39917 (July 13, 2010). 

Hyundai HYSCO 

On January 15, 2010, Hyundai 

HYSCO submitted a letter indicating 

that it made no sales to the United 

States during the POR. We have not 

received any comments on Hyundai 

HYSCO’s submission. In response to the 

Department’s inquiry to CBP, CBP data 

showed entries for consumption of 

subject merchandise from Hyundai 

HYSCO may have entered U.S. customs 

territory during the POR. See 

Memorandum from Joseph Shuler, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to the File, ‘‘Customs 

Documentation in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea,’’ dated November 18, 

2010. 

On November 18, 2010, we asked 

Hyundai HYSCO to explain the 

apparent discrepancy between its no 

shipment claim and the CBP 

information. 

Hyundai HYSCO responded on 

November 30, 2010, re-affirming that it 

did not export or sell subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR, and that it did not know or 

have reason to know that such 

merchandise would be exported to the 

United States during the POR. 

The Department has concluded that 

there is no evidence on the record that, 

at the time of sale, Hyundai HYSCO had 

knowledge that these entries were 

destined for the United States, nor is 

there evidence that Hyundai HYSCO 

had knowledge that any of these entries 

of subject merchandise entered the 

United States during the POR. See 

Memorandum to File, from Matthew 

Jordan, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, through Nancy Decker, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations 

Office 1, ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the 

Republic of Korea with respect to 

Hyundai HYSCO,’’ dated December 7, 

2010. 

With regard to Hyundai HYSCO’s 

claim of no shipments, our practice 

since implementation of the 1997 

regulations concerning no-shipment 

respondents has been to rescind the 

administrative review if the respondent 

certifies that it had no shipments and 

we have confirmed through our 

examination of CBP data that there were 

no shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR. See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997), and Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Japan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 70 FR 53161, 

53162 (September 7, 2005), unchanged 

in Oil Country Tubular Goods from 

Japan: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 

(January 3, 2006). 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, we explained 

that, where respondents in an 

administrative review demonstrate that 

they had no knowledge of sales through 

resellers to the United States, we would 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the all-others rate applicable to the 

proceeding. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment 

Policy Notice’’). 

Based on Hyundai HYSCO’s 

certification of no shipments and 

evidence on the record, we 

preliminarily determine that Hyundai 

HYSCO had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the Assessment Policy 

Notice clarification was intended to 

address, we find it appropriate in this 

case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 

existing entries of merchandise 

produced by Hyundai HYSCO and 

exported by other parties at the allothers rate should we continue to find 

at the time of our final results that 

Hyundai HYSCO had no shipments of 

subject merchandise from Korea. See, 

e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from India: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December 

19, 2008); Magnesium Metal From the 

Russian Federation: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010), 

unchanged in Magnesium Metal From 

the Russian Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 

2010). In addition, the Department finds 

that it is more consistent with the 

Assessment Policy Notice clarification 

not to rescind the review in part in these 

circumstances but, rather, to complete 

the review with respect to Hyundai 

HYSCO and issue appropriate 

instructions to CBP based on the final 

results of the review. See the 

Assessment Rates section of this notice 

below. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to this 

review is circular welded non-alloy 

steel pipe and tube, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4mm (16 

inches) in outside diameter, regardless 

of wall thickness, surface finish (black, 

galvanized, or painted), or end finish 

(plain end, beveled end, threaded, or 

threaded and coupled). These pipes and 

tubes are generally known as standard 

pipes and tubes and are intended for the 

low-pressure conveyance of water, 

steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids 

and gases in plumbing and heating 

systems, air-conditioning units, 

automatic sprinkler systems, and other 

related uses. Standard pipe may also be 

used for light load-bearing applications, 

such as for fence tubing, and as 

structural pipe tubing used for framing 

and as support members for 

reconstruction or load-bearing purposes 

in the construction, shipbuilding, 

trucking, farm equipment, and other 

related industries. Unfinished conduit 

pipe is also included in this review. 

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes 

within the physical description outlined 

above are included within the scope of 

this review except line pipe, oil-country 

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical 

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 

redraws, finished scaffolding, and 

finished conduit. In accordance with the 

Department’s Final Negative 

Determination of Scope Inquiry on 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe and Tube From Brazil, the 

Republic of Korea, Mexico and 

Venezuela, 61 FR 11608 (March 21, 

1996), pipe certified to the API 5L linepipe specification and pipe certified to 

both the API 5L line-pipe specifications 

and the less-stringent ASTM A–53 

standard-pipe specifications, which falls 

within the physical parameters as 

outlined above, and entered as line pipe 

of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines 

is outside of the scope of the 

antidumping duty order. 

Imports of these products are 

currently classifiable under the 

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTS’’) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. 

Although the HTS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

Date of Sale 

The Department normally will use the 

date of invoice, as recorded in the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77841 

producer’s or exporter’s records kept in 

the ordinary course of business, as the 

date of sale, but may use a date other 

than the invoice date if the Department 

is satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the material 

terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). 

(A) SeAH 

For its home market sales, SeAH has 

reported the date the billing document 

is created in its accounting system as 

the date of sale. This is the date when 

the final price and quantity are set and 

is, in most cases, the same as the date 

of the shipping invoice. 

For its U.S. sales, SeAH reported the 

date of shipment from Korea as the date 

of sale because all U.S. sales are 

produced to order and the quantity 

ordered is subject to change between 

order and shipment. In addition, the 

shipment date from Korea always 

precedes the date of the invoice to the 

unaffiliated U.S. customer, because 

SeAH’s U.S. affiliate, Pusan Pipe 

America Inc. (‘‘PPA’’), does not invoice 

the unaffiliated U.S. customer until 

shortly after the subject merchandise 

enters into the United States. Because 

quantity is not finalized until shipment 

and because the shipment date always 

precedes the invoice date to the U.S. 

customer, we are relying on the date of 

shipment from Korea as the U.S. date of 

sale. 

(B) Husteel 

For its home market sales, Husteel 

issues the shipment invoice at the time 

of shipment and considers the shipment 

date as the date of sale. 

For its U.S. sales through Husteel 

USA, Husteel reported the date of sale 

as the earlier of the commercial invoice 

date or the shipment date from Korea, 

in accordance with the Department’s 

regulatory presumption that the invoice 

date is the date of sale. Therefore, we 

are relying on the earlier of the 

commercial invoice date or the 

shipment date as the date of sale. 

(C) Nexteel 

Nexteel reported that negotiations 

regarding price and quantity can 

continue throughout the entire sales 

process. For both home market and U.S. 

sales, price is not fixed until Nexteel 

issues its tax and commercial invoice, 

which can occur after shipment date. 

See Nexteel A QR at A–20; see also 

Nexteel B&C QR at B–14 and A–9. Per 

the Department’s practice that the date 

of sale may not be after shipment from 

factory, Nexteel reported the earlier of 

shipment date or invoice date as the 

date of sale. Therefore, we are relying on 

the earlier of the shipment date or the 

commercial invoice date as the date of 

sale. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether SeAH and 

Husteel’s sales of CWP from Korea to 

the United States were made at less than 

NV, we compared constructed export 

price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice below. To 

determine whether Nexteel’s sales of 

CWP from Korea to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘Export Price and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice 

below. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, we compared the EP and CEP of 

individual U.S. transactions to monthly 

weighted-average NVs of the foreign-like 

product, where there were sales made in 

the ordinary course of trade, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section below. 

We are using a quarterly costing 

approach for SeAH and Husteel, as 

described in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and, therefore, we have not made 

price-to-price comparisons for these 

companies outside of a quarter to lessen 

the distortive effect of comparing noncontemporaneous sales prices during a 

period of significantly changing costs. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by SeAH, Husteel, and 

Nexteel that are covered by the 

description contained in the ‘‘Scope of 

the Order’’ section above and were sold 

in the home market during the POR to 

be the foreign like product for purposes 

of determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. 

We have relied on five criteria to 

match U.S. sales of subject merchandise 

to comparison market sales of the 

foreign like product: (1) Grade; (2) 

nominal pipe size; (3) wall thickness; (4) 

surface finish; and (5) end-finish. For 

SeAH, we used actual pipe size in 

millimeters instead of nominal pipe 

size, because SeAH works with actual 

outside diameter in the ordinary course 

of business, and its unit of measure for 

nominal pipe size varies by transaction. 

For Husteel, we used outside diameter 

for certain transactions instead of 

nominal pipe size because for certain 

specifications, a nominal pipe size is 

not available. Where there were no sales 

of identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

the next most similar foreign like 

product on the basis of the 

characteristics listed above. 

Consistent with the most recently 

completed administrative review, for 

Nexteel and SeAH, we reclassified 

certain of the reported grades of certain 

pipes for product comparison purposes. 

See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel 

Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Final 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 34980 

(June 21, 2010) (‘‘CWP from Korea 2007– 

2008’’), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

See also Memorandum from Joshua 

Morris, International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to the File, ‘‘Preliminary 

Results Calculation Memorandum,’’ 

dated December 7, 2010 (‘‘SeAH 

Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo’’); 

and Memorandum from Matthew Jordan 

and Yasmin Nair, International Trade 

Compliance Analysts, to the File, 

‘‘Preliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum for Nexteel Co., Ltd.,’’ 

dated December 7, 2010 (‘‘Nexteel 

Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo’’). 

Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price 

Offset 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or 

CEP transaction. The LOT in the 

comparison market is the LOT of the 

starting-price sales or, when NV is based 

on constructed value (‘‘CV’’), the LOT of 

the sales from which we derive selling, 

general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses and profit. For CEP, the LOT 

is that of the constructed sale from the 

exporter to the affiliated importer. See 

19 CFR 351.412(c)(ii). See also Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 

F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Where it is not possible to make 

comparisons at the same LOT, the 

statute permits the Department to 

account for the different levels. See 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

Specifically, if the comparison market 

sales are made at multiple LOTs, and 

the difference in LOTs affects price 

comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison market sales at the LOT 

of the export transaction, the 

Department makes an upward or 

downward LOT adjustment in 

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube From Mexico, 73 FR 

5515, 5522 (January 30, 2008) (‘‘LWR 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

Pipe from Mexico’’). Alternatively, for 

CEP sales, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

LOT of the CEP, but the data available 

do not provide an appropriate basis to 

determine a LOT adjustment, we reduce 

NV by the amount of indirect selling 

expenses incurred in the foreign 

comparison market on sales of the 

foreign like product, but by no more 

than the amount of the indirect selling 

expenses incurred for CEP sales. See 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP 

offset provision) and LWR Pipe from 

Mexico, 73 FR at 5522. 

To determine whether sales are made 

at different LOTs, we examine stages in 

the marketing process and selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer. See, e.g., Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Not Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 

from Thailand, 73 FR 24565 (May 5, 

2008); and LWR Pipe from Mexico, 

unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular 

Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 73 FR 

35649 (June 24, 2008). In particular, we 

analyze whether different selling 

activities are performed, and whether 

any price differences (other than those 

for which other allowances are made 

under the Act) are shown to be wholly 

or partly due to a difference in LOT 

between the CEP and NV. In analyzing 

differences in selling functions, we 

determine whether the LOTs identified 

by the respondent are meaningful. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR at 27371. If the claimed 

LOTs are the same, we expect that the 

functions and activities of the seller 

should be similar. Conversely, if a party 

claims that LOTs are different for 

different groups of sales, the functions 

and activities of the seller should be 

dissimilar. See Porcelain-on-Steel 

Cookware From Mexico: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 2000), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

(A) SeAH 

SeAH reported two channels of 

distribution in the comparison market, 

Korea: (1) Direct sales to unaffiliated 

end-users and distributors; and (2) sales 

to affiliated companies. In the U.S. 

market, SeAH reported one LOT and 

one channel of distribution for the CEP 

sales made through its affiliated 

company in the United States, PPA. 

SeAH stated that its U.S. sales were 

made at a different, less advanced LOT 

than its comparison market sales. SeAH 

is not seeking a LOT adjustment, 

however, because it had no comparison 

market sales that were at the same LOT 

as the U.S. CEP sales. Instead, it claims 

that a CEP offset is warranted. See SeAH 

A QR 21–22. 

In evaluating SeAH’s claim, we 

examined its activities in each channel 

of distribution relating to four different 

types of selling functions: Sales process 

and marketing support; freight and 

delivery; inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and warranty and 

technical services. Based on our 

analysis, we preliminarily determine 

that SeAH’s selling activities in the 

comparison market did not vary 

significantly by channel of distribution. 

See SeAH’s Section A Questionnaire 

Response at Exhibit A–16. Therefore, we 

preliminary determine that SeAH sold 

at one LOT in the comparison market. 

We further determine preliminarily that 

SeAH sold at one LOT in the U.S. 

market. 

We then compared the selling 

functions performed by SeAH for its 

U.S. sales to the selling functions 

performed for the single LOT in the 

comparison market. Record evidence 

indicates that SeAH undertakes 

significant activities in the comparison 

market related to the sales process and 

marketing support, as well as 

warehousing and warranty services that 

it does not undertake for its U.S. CEP 

sales. See SeAH Preliminary Sales 

Calculation Memo and SeAH A QR at 

Exhibit A–16. These differences in 

selling functions indicate that SeAH’s 

comparison market sales are made at a 

more advanced stage of distribution 

than its CEP sales. Consequently, we 

preliminarily determine that SeAH’s 

comparison market and CEP sales are at 

different LOTs. 

(B) Husteel 

Husteel reported one channel of 

distribution in its home market: Sales to 

unaffiliated customers that include 

distributors and end-users. In the U.S. 

market, Husteel reported one channel of 

distribution: Sales to unaffiliated 

customers made through its affiliated 

company in the United States, Husteel 

USA. Husteel stated that its U.S. sales 

were made at a different, less advanced 

LOT than its comparison market sales. 

Husteel is not seeking a LOT 

adjustment, however, because it had no 

comparison market sales that were at 

the same LOT as the U.S. CEP sales. 

Instead, it claims that a CEP offset is 

warranted. See Husteel A QR at A–15. 

In evaluating Husteel’s claim, we 

examined its activities in each channel 

of distribution relating to four different 

types of selling functions: Sales process 

and marketing support; freight and 

delivery; inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and warranty and 

technical services. Based on our 

analysis, we preliminarily determine 

that Husteel’s selling activities in the 

comparison market did not vary 

significantly by channel of distribution. 

See Husteel November Supplemental 

Response at Exhibit A–22. Therefore, we 

preliminary determine that Husteel sold 

at one LOT in the comparison market. 

We further determine preliminarily that 

Husteel sold at one LOT in the U.S. 

market. 

We then compared the selling 

functions performed by Husteel for its 

U.S. sales to the selling functions 

performed for the single LOT in the 

comparison market. Record evidence 

indicates that Husteel undertakes 

significant activities in the comparison 

market related to the sales process and 

market research, procurement and 

sourcing services, as well as personnel 

training that it does not undertake for its 

U.S. CEP sales. See Memorandum from 

Alexander Montoro, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, to the File, Re: 

Preliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum, dated December 7, 2010 

(‘‘Husteel Preliminary Sales Calculation 

Memo’’) and Husteel November 

Supplemental Response at Exhibit A– 

22. These differences in selling 

functions performed for comparison 

market and CEP transactions indicate 

that Husteel’s comparison market sales 

are made at a more advanced stage of 

distribution than its CEP sales. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that Husteel’s comparison 

market and CEP sales are at different 

LOTs. 

(C) Nexteel 

Nexteel reported one channel of 

distribution in the home market: Direct 

sales to unaffiliated end-users and 

distributors. In the U.S. market, Nexteel 

reported one LOT and two channels of 

distribution. See Nexteel Preliminary 

Sales Calculation Memo. Nexteel stated 

that its U.S. sales were made at the same 

LOT as its comparison market sales and 

is, therefore, not seeking a LOT 

adjustment. See Nexteel A QR at 11; see 

also Nexteel B&C QR at B–22 and A–16. 

As discussed above, the Department 

will make a LOT adjustment in these 

circumstances when the information 

exists to do so. We have found different 

LOTs between the comparison market 

and the CEP sales for SeAH and Husteel. 

However, since there is only one LOT in 

the comparison market for both SeAH 

and Husteel, there is no basis upon 

which to determine whether there is a 

pattern of consistent price differences 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77843 

between LOTs in the comparison market 

upon which to base a LOT adjustment 

to the CEP sales. Further, we do not 

have the information that would allow 

us to examine the price patterns of 

SeAH’s and Husteel’s sales of other 

similar products, and there is no other 

record evidence upon which a LOT 

adjustment could be based. Therefore, 

we have not made a LOT adjustment for 

either SeAH or Husteel. 

Instead, in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, we preliminarily 

determine that a CEP offset is 

appropriate for SeAH and Husteel to 

reflect that their comparison market 

sales are at a more advanced stage than 

the LOT of their respective CEP sales. 

We based the amount of the CEP offset 

on comparison market indirect selling 

expenses and limited the deduction to 

the amount of the indirect selling 

expenses deducted from CEP under 

section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act. We 

applied the CEP offset to the NV–CEP 

comparisons. For a detailed discussion, 

see SeAH Preliminary Sales Calculation 

Memo; see also Husteel Preliminary 

Sales Calculation Memo. 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, CEP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) in the United States 

before or after the date of importation by 

or for the account of the producer or 

exporter of such merchandise, or by a 

seller affiliated with the producer or 

exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 

with the producer or exporter. 

(A) SeAH 

For purposes of this review, SeAH 

classified all of its export sales of CWP 

to the United States as CEP sales. During 

the POR, SeAH made sales in the United 

States through its U.S. affiliate, PPA, 

which then resold the merchandise to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States. The Department calculated CEP 

based on the packed, delivered prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States, net of early payment discounts 

and other discounts. We adjusted these 

prices for movement expenses, 

including foreign inland freight, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

foreign and U.S. brokerage and 

handling, and U.S. customs duties, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we deducted from the 

starting price those selling expenses that 

were incurred in selling the subject 

merchandise in the United States, 

including imputed credit expenses, 

warranty expenses, and indirect selling 

expenses. We also made an adjustment 

for profit in accordance with section 

772(d)(3) of the Act. We used the 

expenses reported by SeAH in 

connection with its U.S. sales, with the 

exception of an adjustment to the 

indirect selling expense calculation. See 

SeAH Preliminary Sales Calculation 

Memo. 

(B) Husteel 

For purposes of this review, Husteel 

classified all of its export sales of CWP 

to the United States as CEP sales. During 

the POR, Husteel made sales in the 

United States through its U.S. affiliate, 

Husteel USA, which then resold the 

merchandise to unaffiliated customers 

in the United States. The Department 

calculated CEP based on the packed, 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. We 

adjusted these prices for movement 

expenses, including foreign inland 

freight, international freight, marine 

insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage 

and handling, and U.S. customs duties, 

in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 

of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we deducted from the 

starting price those selling expenses that 

were incurred in selling the subject 

merchandise in the United States, 

including imputed credit expenses and 

indirect selling expenses. We also made 

an adjustment for profit in accordance 

with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We 

used the expenses reported by Husteel 

in connection with its U.S. sales. See 

Husteel Preliminary Sales Calculation 

Memo. 

Export Price 

(C) Nexteel 

Nexteel reported that it made U.S. 

sales only on an EP basis. For sales to 

the United States, the Department 

calculated EP in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act. Section 772(a) 

of the Act defines EP as the price at 

which the subject merchandise is first 

sold before the date of importation by 

the exporter or manufacturer outside the 

United States to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States or to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States. We calculated EP 

because the merchandise was sold by 

Nexteel to an unaffiliated purchaser for 

exportation to the United States prior to 

importation and CEP methodology was 

not otherwise warranted. Nexteel 

reported sales to the United States based 

upon three different types of sales 

terms: Free-on board; cost and freight; 

and cost, insurance and freight. The 

Department calculated EP based on 

these reported prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. Where 

appropriate, the Department made 

deductions, consistent with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, for the following 

movement expenses: Foreign inland 

freight; foreign brokerage and handling; 

international freight; and marine 

insurance. 

Normal Value 

(A) Cost Averaging Methodology 

The Department’s normal practice is 

to calculate an annual weighted-average 

cost for the POR. See Certain Pasta 

From Italy: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 

2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, 

and Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 

(January 24, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5 (explaining the 

Department’s practice of computing a 

single weighted-average cost for the 

entire period). However, we recognize 

that possible distortions may result if 

we use our normal annual-average cost 

method during a period of significant 

cost changes. In determining whether to 

deviate from our normal methodology of 

calculating an annual weighted-average 

cost, we evaluate the case-specific 

record evidence using two primary 

factors: (1) The change in the cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) recognized by 

the respondent during the POR must be 

deemed significant; (2) the record 

evidence must indicate that sales during 

the shorter averaging periods could be 

reasonably linked with the cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’) or CV during the 

same shorter averaging periods. See 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Mexico: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 6627 (February 10, 2010) 

(‘‘SSSS from Mexico’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6 and 

Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From 

Belgium: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

75398 (December 11, 2008) (‘‘SSPC from 

Belgium’’), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

4. 

1. Significance of Cost Changes 

In prior cases, we established 25 

percent as the threshold (between the 

high- and low-quarter COM) for 

determining that the changes in COM 

are significant enough to warrant a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

departure from our standard annual-cost 

approach. See SSPC from Belgium and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. In the 

instant case, record evidence shows that 

Husteel and SeAH experienced 

significant changes (i.e., changes that 

exceeded 25 percent) between the high 

and low quarterly COM during the POR 

for the selected highest sales volume 

CWP products. This change in COM is 

attributable primarily to the price 

volatility for hot-rolled carbon steel coil 

used in the manufacture of CWP. We 

found that prices for hot-rolled carbon 

steel coil changed significantly 

throughout the POR and, as a result, 

directly affected the cost of the material 

inputs consumed by Husteel and SeAH. 

See Memorandum from James Balog to 

Neal M. Halper, Director of Office of 

Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Husteel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Husteel 

Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo’’) 

dated December 7, 2010, and 

Memorandum from Kristin Case to Neal 

M. Halper, Director of Office of 

Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—SeAH Steel Corporation,’’ 

(‘‘SeAH Preliminary Cost Calculation 

Memo’’) dated December 7, 2010. 

2. Linkage Between Cost and Sales 

Information 

Consistent with past precedent, 

because we found the changes in costs 

to be significant, we evaluated whether 

there is evidence of a linkage between 

the cost changes and the sales prices 

during the POR. See, e.g., SSSS from 

Mexico and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 

and SSPC from Belgium and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. Absent a 

surcharge or other pricing mechanism, 

the Department may alternatively look 

for evidence of a clear pattern that 

changes in selling prices reasonably 

correlate to changes in unit costs. See 

SSPC from Belgium and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4. These correlative elements 

may be measured and defined in a 

number of ways depending on the 

associated industry and the overall 

production and sales processes. To 

determine whether a reasonable 

correlation existed between the sales 

prices and their underlying costs during 

the POR, for SeAH and Husteel, we 

compared weighted-average quarterly 

prices to the corresponding quarterly 

COM for the five control numbers with 

the highest volume of sales in the 

comparison market and the United 

States. Our comparison reveals that 

sales and costs for a majority of the 

sample CONNUMs showed reasonable 

correlation. After reviewing this 

information and determining that 

changes in selling prices reasonably 

correlate to changes in unit costs, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

linkage between Husteel’s and SeAH’s 

costs and sales prices during the POR. 

See Husteel Preliminary Cost 

Calculation Memo. See also SeAH 

Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo. 

See, e.g., SSSS from Mexico and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6 and SSPC 

from Belgium and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

4. 

Because we have found significant 

cost changes in COM as well as 

reasonable linkage between costs and 

sales prices, we have preliminarily 

determined that a quarterly costing 

approach leads to more appropriate 

comparisons in our antidumping duty 

calculations for Husteel and SeAH. 

(B) Selection of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there was a 

sufficient volume of sales in the 

comparison market, Korea, to serve as a 

viable basis for calculating NV, we 

compared Husteel’s, Nexteel’s, and 

SeAH’s home market sales volumes of 

the foreign like product to their U.S. 

sales volumes of the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. For each 

company, the aggregate home market 

sales volumes of the foreign like product 

were greater than five percent of their 

aggregate U.S. sales volumes of the 

subject merchandise. Therefore, we 

determine that the home market was 

viable for comparison purposes for 

Husteel, Nexteel, and SeAH. 

(C) Affiliated Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

Husteel reported that it did not sell 

any subject merchandise to affiliated 

parties during the POR. 

SeAH and Nexteel reported sales of 

the foreign like product to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers in the 

comparison market. The Department 

calculates NV based on a sale to an 

affiliated party only if it is satisfied that 

the price to the affiliated party is 

comparable to the price at which sales 

are made to parties not affiliated with 

the producer or exporter, i.e., sales at 

‘‘arm’s length.’’ See 19 CFR 351.403(c). 

To test whether the sales to affiliates 

were made at arm’s-length prices, we 

compared on a model-specific basis, the 

starting prices of sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, and packing. In accordance 

with the Department’s current practice, 

if the prices charged to an affiliated 

party were, on average, between 98 and 

102 percent of the prices charged to 

unaffiliated parties for merchandise 

identical or most similar to that sold to 

the affiliated party, we considered the 

sales to be at arm’s-length prices and 

included such sales in the calculation of 

NV. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Conversely, 

where sales to the affiliated party did 

not pass the arm’s-length test, all sales 

to that affiliated party were excluded 

from the NV calculation. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69194 (November 

15, 2002). 

(D) Cost of Production Analysis 

SeAH 

The Department disregarded sales 

made below the COP in the last 

completed review in which SeAH 

participated. See CWP from Korea 2007– 

2008. Thus, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that SeAH made sales of the subject 

merchandise in its comparison market 

at prices below the COP in the current 

review period. Pursuant to section 

773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP 

investigation of sales by SeAH. 

Husteel 

The Department disregarded sales 

made below the COP in the last 

completed review in which Husteel 

participated. See Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of 

Korea: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 

32492 (June 10, 2004). Thus, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act, there are reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that Husteel made 

sales of the subject merchandise in its 

comparison market at prices below the 

COP in the current review period. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 

we initiated a COP investigation of sales 

by Husteel. 

Nexteel 

No COP investigation was conducted 

for Nexteel. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

Before making any comparisons to 

NV, we conducted a COP analysis of 

SeAH and Husteel, pursuant to section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

SeAH’s and Husteel’s comparison 

market sales were made at prices below 

the COP, by quarter. We compared sales 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77845 

of the foreign like product in the home 

market with model-specific COP figures. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of 

the Act, we calculated COP based on the 

sum of the costs of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, plus SG&A 

expenses, financial expenses and all 

costs and expenses incidental to placing 

the foreign like product in packed 

condition and ready for shipment. 

SeAH 

We relied on home market sales and 

COP information provided by SeAH in 

its questionnaire responses, except 

where noted below: 

During the POR, SeAH purchased 

carbon steel hot-rolled coil inputs from 

a home market affiliated company, 

Pohang Iron and Steel Company 

(‘‘POSCO’’). Carbon steel hot-rolled coil 

is considered a major input to the 

production of CWP. Section 773(f)(3) of 

the Act (the major input rule) states: 

If, in the case of a transaction between 

affiliated persons involving the production 

by one of such persons of a major input to 

the merchandise, the administering authority 

has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that an amount represented as the value of 

such input is less than the cost of production 

of such input, then the administering 

authority may determine the value of the 

major input on the basis of the information 

available regarding such cost of production, 

if such cost is greater than the amount that 

would be determined for such input under 

paragraph (2). 

Paragraph 2 of section 773(f) of the 

Act (transactions disregarded) states: 

A transaction directly or indirectly 

between affiliated persons may be 

disregarded if, in the case of any element of 

value required to be considered, the amount 

representing that element does not fairly 

reflect the amount usually reflected in sales 

of merchandise under consideration in the 

market under consideration. If a transaction 

is disregarded under the preceding sentence 

and no other transactions are available for 

consideration, the determination of the 

amount shall be based on the information 

available as to what the amount would have 

been if the transaction had occurred between 

persons who are not affiliated. 

In accordance with the major input 

rule, and as stated in the Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR at 

45714 (August 8, 2008), unchanged in 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Mexico: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 6365 (February 9, 2009), 

it is the Department’s normal practice to 

use all three elements of the major input 

rule (i.e., transfer price, COP, and 

market price) where available. In 

accordance with section 773(f)(3) of the 

Act (the major input rule), we evaluated 

transactions between SeAH and its 

affiliate using the transfer price, COP, 

and market price of carbon steel hotrolled coil. For the preliminary results, 

we adjusted SeAH’s reported costs to 

reflect the highest of these three values 

for SeAH’s purchases of hot-rolled coil 

from POSCO. Because we have 

determined that shorter cost periods are 

appropriate for the COP analysis, we 

have applied the major input rule 

analysis and calculated the related 

adjustments on a quarterly basis. 

We adjusted the cost of goods sold 

denominator used in the general and 

administrative expense ratio to reflect 

our major input adjustment. We also 

adjusted the cost of goods sold 

denominator used in the financial 

expense ratio to reflect our major input 

adjustment. See SeAH Preliminary Cost 

Calculation Memo. 

We did not include local home market 

sales that were paid on a local letter of 

credit basis, as SeAH knew these sales 

were destined for export. See SeAH 

Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo. 

Husteel 

In our sales-below-cost analysis, we 

relied on home market sales and COP 

information provided by Husteel in its 

questionnaire responses, except that we 

adjusted the general and administrative 

expense ratio to exclude the offset for 

commission income. See Husteel 

Preliminary Cost Calculation Memo. 

1. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

In determining whether to disregard 

SeAH’s and Husteel’s home market sales 

made at prices below the COP, we 

examined, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether, 

within an extended period of time, such 

sales were made in substantial 

quantities, and whether such sales were 

made at prices which permitted the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time in the normal course of 

trade. As noted in section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act, prices are considered to 

provide for recovery of costs if such 

prices are above the weighted average 

per-unit COP for the period of 

investigation or review. We determined 

the net comparison market prices for the 

below-cost test by subtracting from the 

gross unit price any applicable 

movement charges, discounts, direct 

and indirect selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. See SeAH 

Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo; 

see also Husteel Preliminary Sales 

Calculation Memo. 

As discussed above, we have relied on 

a quarterly costing approach in this 

review. Similar to that used by the 

Department in cases of high-inflation 

(see, e.g., Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality 

Steel Plate Products from Indonesia, 64 

FR 73164 (December 29, 1999), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1), this 

methodology restates the quarterly costs 

on a year-end equivalent basis, 

calculates an annual weighted-average 

cost for the POR and then restates it to 

each respective quarter. We find that 

this alternative cost calculation method 

meets the requirements of section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 

2. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of 

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

sales of a given product were at prices 

less than the COP, we did not disregard 

any below-cost sales of that product 

because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of 

a respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because: (1) They were made within an 

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) 

based on our comparison of prices to the 

indexed weighted-average COPs for the 

POR, they were at prices which would 

not permit the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

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

the Act. 

Our cost tests for Husteel and SeAH 

revealed that, for home market sales of 

certain models, less than 20 percent of 

the sales of those models were made at 

prices below the COP. Therefore, we 

retained all such sales in our analysis 

and included them in determining NV. 

Our cost test for SeAH and Husteel also 

indicated that for home market sales of 

other models, more than 20 percent 

were sold at prices below the COP 

within an extended period of time and 

were at prices which would not permit 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time. Thus, in 

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

Act, we excluded these below-cost sales 

from our analysis and used the 

remaining above-cost sales to determine 

NV. See SeAH Preliminary Sales 

Calculation Memo; see also Husteel 

Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo. 

(E) Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(e) of 

the Act, we calculated CV for SeAH and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
77846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 

Husteel based on the sum of their 

respective material and fabrication 

costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. We calculated the COP 

component of CV as described above in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section of this notice. In accordance 

with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

based SG&A expenses and profit on the 

amounts incurred and realized by each 

respondent in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade, 

for consumption in the foreign country. 

(F) Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on packed 

prices to unaffiliated customers in 

Korea. For Nexteel and Husteel, we 

adjusted these prices for early payment 

discounts. We adjusted the starting 

price for all respondents, less any 

discounts, by deducting foreign inland 

freight and warehousing (Nexteel only), 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of 

the Act. We made adjustments for 

differences in packing, in accordance 

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

773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act, and in 

circumstances of sale (for imputed 

credit expenses), under section 

773(a)(6)(c)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

315.410. 

When comparing U.S. sales with 

comparison market sales of similar, but 

not identical, merchandise, we also 

made adjustments for physical 

differences in the merchandise in 

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We 

based this adjustment on the difference 

in the variable cost of manufacturing for 

the foreign like product and subject 

merchandise. See 19 CFR 351.411(b). 

(G) Price-to-CV Comparison 

Where we were unable to find a home 

market match of such or similar 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based 

NV on CV. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to CV in accordance with 

section 773(a)(8) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 and 

section 773A of the Act, we made 

currency conversions based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the date of 

the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See Import 

Administration website at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that a 

weighted-average dumping margin 

exists for the respondents for the period 

November 1, 2008, through October 31, 

2009. Respondents other than 

mandatory respondents will receive the 

weighted-average of the margins 

calculated for those companies selected 

for individual review (i.e., mandatory 

respondents), excluding de minimis 

margins or margins based entirely on 

adverse facts available. 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

percent 

SeAH Steel Corporation ....... 6.24 

Husteel Co., Ltd .................... 2.15 

Nexteel Co., Ltd .................... 12.30 

Hyundai HYSCO ................... * 

Kumkang Industrial Co., Ltd 8.88 

A–JU Besteel Co., Ltd .......... 8.88 

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

last segment of the proceeding in which the 

firm had shipments or sales. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of publication of this notice 

to the parties to this proceeding in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.310. If a 

hearing is requested, the Department 

will notify interested parties of the 

hearing schedule. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the case briefs. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. The Department will 

consider case briefs filed by interested 

parties within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Interested parties may file rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The 

Department will consider rebuttal briefs 

filed not later than five days after the 

time limit for filing case briefs. Parties 

submitting arguments in this proceeding 

are requested to submit with the 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue; 

(2) a brief summary of the argument; 

and (3) a table of authorities, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). 

Further, parties submitting case and/or 

rebuttal briefs are requested to provide 

the Department with an additional 

electronic copy of the public version of 

any such comments on a computer 

diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs must 

be served on interested parties in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, unless extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 

19 CFR 351.213(h). 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The 

Department will issue appropriate 

appraisement instructions for the 

companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

For SeAH and Husteel, we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

duty assessment rates based on the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of the sales, as 

reported by SeAH and Husteel. See 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Nexteel reported the importer of 

record for certain of its U.S. sales. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all 

sales where Nexteel reported the 

importer of record, Nexteel submitted 

the reported entered value of the U.S. 

sales and the Department has calculated 

importer-specific assessment rates based 

on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those sales. For certain U.S. 

sales Nexteel did not report the importer 

or the entered value. For purposes of 

calculating importer-specific assessment 

rates, we considered Nexteel’s U.S. 

customer to be the importer of record 

when the importer was unknown, and 

we calculated entered value as U.S. 

price net of international movement 

expenses. 

The Department has calculated 

importer-specific per-unit duty 

assessment rates for the merchandise in 

question by aggregating the dumping 

margins calculated for all U.S. sales to 

each importer and dividing this amount 

by the total quantity of those sales. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates were de minimis, in accordance 

with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), the Department calculated 

importer-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

For the companies that were not 

selected for individual review, we 

calculated an assessment rate based on 

the weighted-average of the cash deposit 

rates calculated for companies selected 

for individual review, where those rates 

were not de minimis or based on 

adverse facts available, in accordance 

with Department practice. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Notices 77847 

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

will instruct CBP to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003, in its Assessment Policy 

Notice. This clarification will apply to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by SeAH, Husteel, 

Nexteel, and Hyundai HYSCO for which 

these companies did not know that their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit rates will be 

effective upon publication of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of CWP from Korea 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

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

deposit rates for the companies listed 

above will be the rates established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is less than 0.5 percent and, 

therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit 

will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 

or investigated companies not listed 

above, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent final 

results in which that manufacturer or 

exporter participated; (3) if the exporter 

is not a firm covered in this review, a 

prior review, or the original less-thanfair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent final results for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise; and 

(4) if neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 

any previous review conducted by the 

Department, the cash deposit rate will 

be 4.80 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

See CWP Order. These cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

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 

written notification of return/ 

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. 

These preliminary results of review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: December 7, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31368 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National 

and Community Service (hereinafter the 

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing collections of information in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program 

helps to ensure that requested data can 

be provided in the desired format, 

reporting burden (time and financial 

resources) is minimized, collection 

instruments are clearly understood, and 

the impact of collection requirement on 

respondents can be properly assessed. 

Currently, the Corporation is 

soliciting comments concerning its 

proposed renewal of its Senior Corps 

Grant Application (424–NSSC)— 

reference OMB Control Number 3045– 

0035, with an expiration date of May 31, 

2011. The Corporation proposes to 

renew the Senior Corps Grant 

Application with one modification: 

The Corporation will ask applicants to 

include an Executive Summary at the 

beginning of Part III: Project Narratives. 

Copies of the information collection 

request can be obtained by contacting 

the office listed in the addresses section 

of this Notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the individual and office 

listed in the ADDRESSES section by 

February 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the title of the information 

collection activity, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for 

National and Community Service, 

Senior Corps, Attention: Mr. Zach 

Rhein, Program Officer, Room 9408A; 

1201 New York Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20525. 

(2) By hand delivery or by courier to 

the Corporation’s mailroom at Room 

8100 at the mail address given in 

paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 

4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

(3) By fax to: (202) 606–3475, 

Attention: Mr. Zach Rhein, Program 

Officer. 

(4) Electronically through 

www.regulations.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TTY–TDD) may call (202) 606– 

3472 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Zach Rhein by e-mail at zrhein@cns.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Corporation is particularly interested in 

comments that: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Corporation, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are expected to respond, including the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology 

(e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES