78216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

1Though U.S. Steel’s April 8, 2010, allegation 

was directed at Mueller, we required Mueller to 

obtain and report COP information from TUNA and 

Ternium because these suppliers produced subject 

merchandise sold by Mueller. 

meters equivalent. Apparel articles 

entered in excess of these quantities will 

be subject to otherwise applicable 

tariffs. 

Dated: December 10, 2010. 

Sergio Botero, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles 

and Apparel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31518 Filed 12–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–805] 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe From Mexico: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests by 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 

from Mexico. This administrative 

review covers mandatory respondents 

Mueller Comercial de Mexico, S. de R.L. 

de C.V. (Mueller) and Ternium Mexico, 

S.A. de C.V. (Ternium). Tuberia 

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

subject to a concurrent changed 

circumstances review of this order; in 

its changed circumstances review, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that Lamina y Placa 

Comercial, S.A. de C.V. (Lamina) is the 

successor-in-interest to TUNA. See 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review: 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 75 FR 

67685 (November 3, 2010). Therefore, 

we are continuing to refer to this entity 

as TUNA for these preliminary results, 

pending a final determination. The 

period of review (POR) is November 1, 

2008, through October 31, 2009. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

of subject merchandise have been made 

at less than normal value (NV). One of 

the companies, Ternium, refused to 

cooperate with the Department in this 

administrative review. We have 

calculated a dumping margin for 

Mueller. We preliminarily determine 

that TUNA had no reviewable sales, 

shipments, or entries during the POR. 

The Department’s review of import data 

supported TUNA’s claim (see ‘‘TUNA’s 

No-Shipment Claim’’ section of this 

notice for further explanation). 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 15, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6312 or (202) 482– 

0469, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 2, 1992, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on certain circular welded non-alloy 

steel pipe from Mexico. 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 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 

Korea, 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992) 

(Antidumping Duty Order). On 

November 2, 2009, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review in the 

Federal Register. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 74 

FR 56573 (November 2, 2009). On 

November 30, 2009, the Department 

received requests for administrative 

review of Ternium (including its 

affiliates Hylsa, Ternium Grupo IMSA, 

and Galvak), TUNA, and Mueller from 

petitioners Allied Tube and Conduit 

Corp. (Allied) and TMK IPSCO; 

respondents Mueller and TUNA also 

submitted requests for administrative 

review on that day. On December 23, 

2009, the Department published a 

Federal Register notice initiating an 

antidumping administrative review. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 68229 (December 23, 2009). 

On December 28, 2009, TUNA withdrew 

its request for an administrative review. 

However, the Department did not 

terminate the review with regard to 

TUNA because petitioners had timely 

requested a review of TUNA. On 

January 6, 2010, the Department issued 

its antidumping questionnaire to 

Mueller, TUNA, and Ternium. 

On February 5, 2010, Ternium and 

TUNA notified the Department that they 

would not submit responses to the 

Department’s questionnaire; TUNA did 

so with a no-shipments claim. With 

regard to TUNA’s no-shipments claim, 

on February 17, 2010, petitioners Allied 

and TMK IPSCO submitted comments; 

on August 4, 2010, they submitted 

further comments. On August 16, 2010, 

TUNA replied to the petitioner’s 

comments. On August 31, 2010, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to TUNA concerning its 

U.S. sales of mechanical tubing. On 

September 8, 2010, TUNA submitted its 

response to the supplemental 

questionnaire concerning mechanical 

tubing. 

With respect to sales data, on 

February 26, 2010, Mueller submitted 

its response to section A of the 

questionnaire; on March 19, 2010, 

Mueller submitted its sections B and C 

response to the questionnaire. On May 

25, 2010, the Department issued its first 

supplemental section A, B, and C 

questionnaire to Mueller. On June 4, 

2010, Mueller submitted its responses to 

the first supplemental section A, B, and 

C questionnaire. On June 24, 2010, 

Mueller submitted a clarification of its 

first supplemental section A 

questionnaire response. On June 17, 

2010, the Department issued its second 

supplemental section A, B, and C 

questionnaire to Mueller. On July 14, 

2010, Mueller submitted its response to 

the second supplemental section A 

questionnaire; on July 16, 2010, Mueller 

submitted its response to the second 

supplemental sections B and C 

questionnaire. On July 19, 2010, Mueller 

submitted corrections to its response to 

the second supplemental sections B and 

C questionnaire. On December 1, 2010, 

Mueller submitted revised home and 

U.S. market databases in response to the 

Department’s request made at the end of 

verification (see ‘‘Verification’’ section 

below). 

On April 8, 2010, petitioner U.S. Steel 

alleged that Mueller had made sales 

below the cost of production (COP) 

during the POR. On June 30, 2010, the 

Department required both TUNA and 

Ternium 1 to submit COP data. See the 

memorandum from Maryanne Burke to 

the file entitled ‘‘Administrative Review 

of Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

from Mexico: Mueller Comercial de 

Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. and 

Southland Pipe Nipples Company, Inc.,’’ 

dated June 30, 2010. On July 13, 2010, 

the Department issued supplemental 

section D questionnaires to Ternium, 

TUNA, and Mueller. On August 20, 

2010, Ternium, TUNA, and Mueller 

each submitted a response to the section 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 78217 

D questionnaire. On October 1, 2010, 

U.S. Steel submitted comments on the 

respondents’ cost data submissions. On 

October 12, 2010, the Department issued 

supplemental section D questionnaires 

to TUNA and Mueller; on October 13, 

2010, the Department issued a 

supplemental section D questionnaire to 

Ternium. On November 8, 2010, TUNA, 

Mueller, and Ternium submitted their 

responses to the Department’s first 

supplemental section D questionnaires. 

On November 24, 2010, U.S. Steel 

submitted comments with regard to the 

section D responses of Mueller, TUNA, 

and Ternium. On December 1, 2010, 

Mueller submitted a response to U.S. 

Steel’s comments with regard to the 

section D responses of Mueller, TUNA, 

and Ternium. 

On July 29, 2010, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review from 

August 9, 2010, to December 7, 2010. 

See Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe From Mexico; Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 44763 (July 29, 2010). 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, and 19 CFR 351.307, we conducted 

a verification of Mueller’s sales 

responses on October 25–29, 2010, in 

Monterrey, Mexico. We conducted a 

verification of TUNA’s no-shipment 

claim on November 1–3, 2010, in 

Monterrey, Mexico. We used standard 

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of both companies’ 

facilities. Because there was insufficient 

time to complete the verification report 

for the preliminary results of review, we 

are unable to consider verification 

report findings for purposes of these 

preliminary results but intend to 

consider them in the final results. 

However, Mueller submitted sales data 

on December 1, 2010, based on revisions 

discussed at the verifications; we have 

used this data in our margin 

calculations for Mueller. Interested 

parties will have an opportunity to 

comment on the verification 

memoranda in their case briefs. See 

‘‘Disclosure and Public Comment’’ 

section below. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are circular welded non-alloy steel 

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters 

(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, 

and other liquids and gases in plumbing 

and heating systems, air conditioning 

units, automatic sprinkler systems, and 

other related uses, and generally meet 

ASTM A–53 specifications. Standard 

pipe may also be used for light loadbearing applications, such as for fence 

tubing, and as structural pipe tubing 

used for framing and support members 

for reconstruction or load-bearing 

purposes in the construction, 

shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, 

and related industries. Unfinished 

conduit pipe is also included in these 

orders. All carbon steel pipes and tubes 

within the physical description outlined 

above are included within the scope of 

this order, except line pipe, oil country 

tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical 

tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 

redraws, finished scaffolding, and 

finished conduit. Standard pipe that is 

dual or triple certified/stenciled that 

enters the U.S. as line pipe of a kind 

used for oil or gas pipelines is also not 

included in this order. 

The merchandise covered by the order 

and subject to this review are currently 

classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

at 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 HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of these proceedings is 

dispositive. 

Date of Sale 

The Department’s regulations state 

that it will normally use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business, as the date of sale. 

See 19 CFR 351.401(i). However, if the 

Department is satisfied that ‘‘a different 

date * * * better reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale,’’ 

the Department may choose a different 

date. Id. Mueller has reported the 

invoice date as the sale date. In 

Mueller’s normal books and records, 

invoice date is recorded as the date of 

sale. However, changes in prices or 

quantities do occur. See Mueller’s July 

16, 2010, supplemental questionnaire 

response at 21–22. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the invoice date is the date of sale 

provided that the invoice is issued on or 

before the shipment date; the shipment 

date will be used as the date of sale 

where the invoice is issued after the 

shipment date. See Certain Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 

Mexico: Preliminary Results Analysis 

Memorandum for Mueller Comercial de 

Mexico, S. de R.L., dated December 7, 

2010 (Analysis Memorandum), for 

further discussion of date of sale. A 

public version of this memorandum is 

on file in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit (CRU) located in Room 

7046 of the main Department of 

Commerce Building, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. 

Sales Made Through Affiliated 

Resellers 

Mueller has two U.S. affiliates who 

sold subject merchandise in the United 

States during the POR to unaffiliated 

customers. The first is Southland Pipe 

and Nipples Company, Inc. (Southland), 

which is Mueller’s importer-of-record 

for direct sales in the United States. See 

‘‘Export Price’’ section, below; see also 

Mueller’s section A response at 3–4. The 

second is Mueller Streamline Co. 

(Streamline). Streamline sells Mueller’s 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States out of 

inventory maintained in warehouses in 

the United States for many of its sales; 

for others, it makes sales in which 

Mueller’s subject merchandise is 

shipped directly from Mueller’s 

facilities in Mexico (‘‘indent sales’’). Id. 

See ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ section, 

below. Mueller, Southland, and 

Streamline are wholly-owned 

subsidiaries of Mueller Industries, Inc. 

Id. For these preliminary results of 

review, we have included both 

Southland’s and Streamline’s sales of 

subject merchandise to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States in our 

margin calculation. Mueller made no 

sales to affiliates in the home market. 

See Mueller’s section A response at 14. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and 

tube from Mexico to the United States 

were made at less than fair value 

(LTFV), we compared EP and CEP sales 

made in the United States by Mueller, 

Southland, and Streamline to 

unaffiliated purchasers to NV as 

described in the ‘‘Constructed Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice, below. In accordance with 

section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), we 

compared individual EP and CEP sales 

prices to monthly weighted-average 

NVs. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
78218 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act we considered all products 

produced by Mueller covered by the 

description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ 

section above, and sold in the home 

market during the POR, to be foreign 

like product for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. We relied on five 

characteristics to match U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise to comparison 

sales of the foreign like product (listed 

in order of priority): (1) Grade; (2) 

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

surface coating; and (5) end-finish. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market 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 and reporting 

instructions listed in the Department’s 

original January 6, 2010, questionnaire. 

Export Price (EP) 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP 

as ‘‘the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) before the date of importation by 

the producer or exporter of subject 

merchandise outside of the United 

States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the United 

States,’’ as adjusted under section 772(c) 

of the Act. In accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, we used EP for a 

number of Mueller’s U.S. sales because 

these sales were made before the date of 

importation and were sales directly to 

unaffiliated customers in the United 

States, and because CEP methodology 

was not otherwise indicated. 

As mentioned above, Southland is 

Mueller’s importer-of-record for direct 

sales in the United States. See Mueller’s 

section A response at 3–4. These sales 

are made prior to importation and 

shipped directly from Mueller’s 

facilities to the unaffiliated U.S. 

customer. Mueller therefore treated 

these sales as EP sales. Id. 

We based EP on the packed, delivered 

duty paid, cost and freight (C&F) or free 

on board (FOB) prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. Mueller 

reported discounts for which we 

accounted in the margin program. See 

Analysis Memorandum. We made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

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

the Act, which included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight from 

the mill to the U.S. border, inland 

freight from the border to the customer 

or warehouse, and U.S. brokerage and 

handling. In addition, we made 

adjustments for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410(c) by deducting 

direct selling expenses incurred on 

home market sales (credit expenses) and 

adding U.S. direct selling expenses 

(credit expenses). 

Constructed Export Price 

Mueller stated it made CEP sales 

through its U.S. affiliate, Streamline, by 

two methods during the POR. The first 

was sales of Mueller subject 

merchandise by Streamline from 

Streamline’s U.S. warehouses 

(‘‘warehouse sales’’). The second was 

sales of Mueller subject merchandise by 

Streamline in which Mueller shipped its 

product directly to the Streamline 

customer (‘‘indent sales’’). For all sales 

under each method, Southland was the 

actual seller to Streamline. See 

Mueller’s section A response at pages 3– 

4. 

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. We 

preliminarily find Mueller properly 

classified all of its U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise through its U.S. affiliate 

Streamline as CEP transactions because 

such sales were made in the United 

States to unaffiliated purchasers. We 

based CEP on packed prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States sold by Streamline. We made 

adjustments for billing adjustments, 

discounts and rebates, where applicable. 

We also made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including 

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 

and handling, inland insurance, U.S. 

customs duties, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, and U.S. 

warehousing expenses. As directed by 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

credit expenses and warranty expenses), 

inventory carrying costs, packing costs, 

and other indirect selling expenses. We 

also made an adjustment for profit in 

accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act. See Analysis Memorandum. 

Because Streamline neither segregates 

product in its warehouses according to 

manufacturer, nor records the 

manufacturer when the subject 

merchandise is entered into its 

warehouses, Streamline and Mueller are 

unable to state with certainty which of 

Mueller’s suppliers manufactured the 

particular subject merchandise in any 

given Streamline ‘‘warehouse sale.’’ 

However, Mueller is able to report the 

percentage manufactured by its 

suppliers (for each diameter and surface 

coating) which it shipped to Streamline 

warehouses. Applying these 

percentages, a percentage for each 

manufacturer can be assigned for each 

such sale. We preliminarily determine 

that this methodology is the best 

available and have used it in the margin 

program. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

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

practicable, we base NV on sales made 

in the comparison market at the same 

level of trade (LOT) as the export 

transaction. The NV LOT is based on the 

starting price of sales in the home 

market or, when NV is based on CV, on 

the LOT of the sales from which SG&A 

expenses and profit are derived. With 

respect to CEP transactions in the U.S. 

market, the CEP LOT is defined as the 

level of the constructed sale from the 

exporter to the importer. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(1)(ii). 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

If the comparison-market sales are at a 

different LOT, and the difference 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, we make a 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, if 

the NV level is more remote from the 

factory than the CEP level and there is 

no basis for determining whether the 

difference in the levels between NV and 

CEP affects price comparability, we 

adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act (the CEP offset provision). See, 

e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon Quality Steel Products from 

Brazil; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 17406, 17410 (April 6, 

2005), results unchanged in Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain HotRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products from Brazil, 70 FR 58683 

(October 7, 2005); see also Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Greenhouse Tomatoes From 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 78219 

Canada, 67 FR 8781 (February 26, 2002) 

and accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 8. For CEP 

sales, we consider only the selling 

activities reflected in the price after the 

deduction of expenses and CEP profit 

under section 772(d)(3) of the Act. See 

Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 

States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314–15 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001). We expect that if the claimed 

LOTs are the same, the functions and 

activities of the seller should be similar. 

Conversely, if a party claims that the 

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 Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

Mueller reported it sold circular 

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube to 

end-users and distributors in the home 

market and to end-users in the United 

States. For the home market, Mueller 

identified two channels of distribution: 

Direct shipments (channel 1) and 

warehouse shipments (channel 2). See 

Mueller’s section A response at 14–15 

and Exhibit A–5. For the U.S. market, 

Mueller identified two channels of 

distribution: Direct sales (channel 1) 

and indirect sales (channel 2). Id. 

Mueller stated that ‘‘a level-of-trade 

adjustment cannot be established;’’ 

rather, a CEP offset was requested. See 

Mueller’s section B response at 28. 

We obtained information from 

Mueller regarding the marketing stages 

involved in making its reported home 

market and U.S. sales. See Mueller’s 

July 16, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response at 13–19. We 

reviewed Mueller’s claims concerning 

the intensity to which all selling 

functions were performed for each home 

market channel of distribution and 

customer category. Based on our 

analysis of all of Mueller’s home market 

selling functions, we agree with 

Mueller’s conclusion that a level-oftrade adjustment cannot be established. 

We further conclude that there is a 

single level of trade in the home market. 

In the U.S. market, Mueller did not 

report multiple levels of trade for EP 

sales. Accordingly, we agree with 

Mueller and preliminarily determine 

that all EP sales were made at the same 

LOT. 

We compared Mueller’s EP level of 

trade to the single NV level of trade 

found in the home market. While we 

find differences in the levels of intensity 

performed for some of these functions 

between the home market NV level of 

trade and the EP level of trade, such 

differences are minor and do not 

establish distinct levels of trade between 

the home market and the U.S. market. 

Based on our analysis of all of Mueller’s 

home market and EP selling functions, 

we find these sales were made at the 

same level of trade. 

For CEP sales, Mueller claims that the 

number and intensity of selling 

functions performed by Mueller in 

making its sales to Streamline are lower 

than the number and intensity of selling 

functions Mueller performed for its EP 

sales, and further claims that CEP sales 

are at a less advanced stage than home 

market sales. See Mueller’s July 16, 

2010, supplemental questionnaire 

response at 13–19. 

We compared the NV LOT (based on 

the selling activities associated with the 

transactions between Mueller and its 

customers in the home market) to the 

CEP LOT (which is based on the selling 

activities associated with the transaction 

between Mueller and its affiliated 

importer, Streamline). Our analysis 

indicates the selling functions 

performed for home market customers 

are either performed at a higher degree 

of intensity or are greater in number 

than the selling functions performed for 

Streamline. For example, in comparing 

Mueller’s selling activities, we find 

many of the reported selling functions 

performed in the home market are not 

performed with respect to CEP sales in 

the U.S. market. For those selling 

activities performed for both home 

market sales and CEP sales, Mueller 

reported it performed each activity at 

either the same or at a higher level of 

intensity in one or both of the home 

market channels of distribution. See 

Mueller’s July 16, 2010 supplemental 

questionnaire response at Exhibit SA– 

10. Based on the foregoing, we conclude 

that the NV LOT is at a more advanced 

stage than the CEP LOT. 

Because we found the home market 

and U.S. CEP sales were made at 

different LOTs, we examined whether a 

LOT adjustment or a CEP offset may be 

appropriate in this review. As we found 

only one LOT in the home market, it 

was not possible to make a LOT 

adjustment to home market sales, 

because such an adjustment is 

dependent on our ability to identify a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the home market sales on 

which NV is based and home market 

sales at the LOT of the U.S. sales. See 

19 CFR 351.412(d)(1)(ii). Furthermore, 

we have no other information that 

provides an appropriate basis for 

determining a LOT adjustment. Because 

the data available do not form an 

appropriate basis for making a LOT 

adjustment, and because the NV LOT is 

at a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the CEP LOT, we have made a CEP 

offset to NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Market 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product is greater than five 

percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 

sales), we compared Mueller’s volume 

of home market sales of the foreign like 

product to the volume of its U.S. sales 

of the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of 

the Act. Because Mueller’s aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was greater than 

five percent of its aggregate volume of 

U.S. sales for subject merchandise, we 

determined the home market was viable. 

See, e.g., Mueller’s July 16, 2010, 

supplemental questionnaire response 

(revised home market and U.S. sales 

databases). 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

In response to a timely allegation from 

U.S. Steel, and in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated 

an investigation to determine whether 

Mueller made home market sales of the 

foreign like product at prices below its 

cost of production during the POR. 

Because Mueller is a re-seller of pipe, 

and not a manufacturer, we solicited 

COP data from its two principal 

suppliers, TUNA and Ternium. We also 

requested that Mueller report its costs 

for the further processing it performs 

(e.g., threading or cutting to length) on 

the pipe it purchases from TUNA and 

Ternium. 

In accordance with section 

773(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we calculated 

COP based on the sum of the supplier’s 

cost of materials, fabrication or other 

processing employed in producing the 

foreign like product. In accordance with 

section 773(b)(3)(B) and (C) of the Act, 

we included amounts for SG&A 

expenses and packing costs. For pipe 

further processed by Mueller, we added 

the costs of materials, direct labor and 

variable overhead incurred by Mueller. 

We also included amounts for Mueller’s 

SG&A expenses and packing costs, if 

any. Based on the review of record 

evidence, Mueller did not appear to 

experience significant changes in cost of 

manufacturing during the period of 

review. Therefore, we followed our 

normal methodology of calculating an 

annual weighted-average cost. We relied 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
78220 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

on home market sales and COP 

information provided by Mueller, 

TUNA and Ternium in their respective 

section D questionnaire responses, 

except as noted below: 

For Mueller, we adjusted the reported 

depreciation, G&A, and financial 

expenses. For additional details, see the 

memorandum from Heidi K. Schriefer to 

Neal M. Halper entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Mueller Comercial 

de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V.’’ dated 

December 7, 2010. 

For TUNA, we adjusted the reported 

hot-rolled coil, G&A and financial 

expenses. For additional details, see the 

memorandum from Heidi K. Schriefer to 

Neal M. Halper entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Tuberia Nacional, 

S.A. de C.V.’’ dated December 7, 2010. 

For Ternium, we adjusted the 

reported G&A and financial expenses. 

Due to time constraints, the Department 

has accepted Ternium’s submissions, as 

adjusted, for the preliminary results. 

However, we note that there are several 

outstanding issues which include 

Ternium’s failure to provide an overall 

reconciliation and to account for the 

cost differences associated with 

dimensional physical characteristics 

which will need to be resolved for the 

final results. For additional details on 

the adjustments made to Ternium’s 

submissions for the preliminary results, 

see the memorandum from Heidi K. 

Schriefer to Neal M. Halper entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Ternium Mexico, 

S.A. de C.V.’’ dated December 7, 2010. 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examine, in accordance 

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

Act, whether such sales were made 

within an extended period of time and 

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. 

Where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model are at prices below the 

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

determine that the below-cost sales are 

not made within an extended period of 

time and in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ 

Where 20 percent or more of the 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given model are 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 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 test for Mueller revealed 

that, for home market sales of certain 

models, less than 20 percent of the sales 

of those models were at prices below the 

COP. We therefore retained all such 

sales in our analysis and used them as 

the basis for determining NV. Our cost 

test 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 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 as the basis 

for determining NV. 

C. Affiliated Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

Mueller made no sales to affiliates in 

the home market. See Mueller’s section 

A response at 14. 

D. Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(e) of 

the Act, we calculated CV as described 

above in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section of this notice, plus 

profit and U.S. packing costs. 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 the 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. 

E. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

We calculated NV based on prices to 

unaffiliated customers. Mueller reported 

home market sales in Mexican pesos 

during the POR. See Mueller’s section B 

response at Exhibit B–1. We accounted 

for billing adjustments, discounts, and 

rebates, and advertising expenses where 

appropriate. We also made deductions, 

where appropriate, for foreign inland 

freight, insurance, handling, and 

warehousing, pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, we 

made adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

compared pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. We also made adjustments for 

differences in circumstances of sale 

(COS) in accordance with section 

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

351.410. In particular, we made COS 

adjustments for imputed credit expenses 

and warranty expenses. Finally, we 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs in 

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

and (B) of the Act. 

F. Price-to-CV Comparisons 

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. 

TUNA’s No-Shipment Claim 

TUNA maintains that while the CBP 

data placed on the record indicate there 

were shipments of the subject 

merchandise manufactured by TUNA 

during the POR, in fact, it was not the 

exporter for any entries. TUNA 

originally submitted a ‘‘no-shipment’’ 

letter, dated February 5, 2010, in which 

the company claimed it did not have 

exports, sales, or entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. Rather, TUNA asserts it made 

sales of subject merchandise to 

unaffiliated companies in the Mexican 

home market and believes some of those 

home market customers export the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States. However, TUNA insists it did 

not know where the material was 

destined at the time of TUNA’s sale to 

its customers. TUNA explains the sales 

in question were ‘‘co-export’’ sales and, 

thus, exempt from the value-added tax 

(VAT) normally collected on sales in the 

domestic market. However, TUNA 

insists that at the time of sale, it has no 

idea which shipments of pipe are 

actually destined for the United States. 

Accordingly, TUNA requests, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), that we rescind 

this administrative review with respect 

to TUNA. 

Meanwhile, on February 17, 2010, 

Allied and TMK IPSCO submitted 

comments arguing TUNA’s ‘‘noshipment’’ claims are not supported by 

record evidence. Allied and TMK IPSCO 

urged the Department to gather more 

information regarding TUNA’s sales to 

an unaffiliated exporter. According to 

Allied and TMK IPSCO, the nature of 

TUNA’s home market sales pursuant to 

Mexico’s IMMEX ‘‘co-export’’ program 

made it highly probable TUNA knew at 

the time of the sale that its merchandise 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 78221 

2Ternium submitted no response to the 

Department’s section A, B, or C questionnaires 

during the course of this review. Ternium did, 

however, submit a response to the Department’s 

section D questionnaire with respect to subject 

merchandise manufactured by Ternium which was 

exported to the United States by Mueller. Sales by 

Mueller or its affiliates will be assessed at the 

Mueller rate without the use of adverse inferences; 

otherwise, sales of subject merchandise 

manufactured by Ternium will be assessed at a rate 

determined from facts available. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review’’ and ‘‘Assessment’’ sections 

below. 

was destined for the United States. 

Allied and TMK IPSCO also urged the 

Department to gather more information 

from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), such as Customs 

Forms 7501 and other import 

documentation. See Allied and TMK 

IPSCO’s letter dated February 17, 2010. 

The Department did, in fact, solicit 

additional information from both TUNA 

and CBP. See, e.g., Memorandum from 

Richard Weible, Director, Office 7 to 

Michael Walsh, Director, AD/CVD 

Revenue Policy & Programs, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, dated 

May 3, 2010 (entering on the record 

entry documentation for selected TUNA 

entries). In addition, between November 

1 and November 3, 2010, the 

Department conducted an on-site 

verification of TUNA’s no shipment 

claims. 

From our examination of the customs 

entry documentation, we saw no 

evidence to suggest TUNA had made 

any reviewable entries of subject 

merchandise to the United States. 

Rather, the documentation indicated 

sales were made to a certain home 

market customer under Mexico’s 

IMMEX co-export program. See 

Mueller’s July 14, 2010, supplemental 

questionnaire response at Exhibit S–5. 

While TUNA had a general knowledge 

that some of its pipe would be 

exported—perhaps to the United States 

or elsewhere—it did not know which 

specific pipes would be exported to the 

United States at the time of its sale to 

its customer. See Mueller’s section A 

response at 5. Therefore, we find the 

record provides no information to 

contradict TUNA’s claim that, at the 

time of its sales to the home market 

customer, it did not have knowledge its 

merchandise would be exported to the 

United States. As a result, we 

preliminarily find TUNA had no 

knowledge its merchandise entered the 

United States and is, therefore, not 

properly subject to review. 

Use of Facts Available 

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

that if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, or fails to 

provide such information by the 

deadlines for submission of the 

information and in the form or manner 

requested (subject to subsections (c)(1) 

and (e) of section 782 of the Act), or 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, then the administering 

authority shall use (subject to section 

782(d) of the Act) facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. Section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that if the administering 

authority determines that a response to 

a request for information does not 

comply with the request, the 

administering authority shall promptly 

inform the responding party and 

provide an opportunity to remedy the 

deficient submission. Section 782(e) of 

the Act states further that the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

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

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Because Ternium has not responded 

to sections A, B, or C of the 

Department’s original questionnaire in 

the instant administrative review, its 

actions constitute a refusal to provide 

information necessary to conduct the 

Department’s antidumping analysis 

under sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of 

the Act. Thus, Ternium withheld 

information requested by the 

Department’s original questionnaire and 

significantly impeded the 

administrative review. See section 

776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

to base the margin for Ternium on facts 

otherwise available, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. 

Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In applying the facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that—if the Department finds 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information—in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title, the 

Department may use an inference 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 

103–316, vol. 1 (1994) at 870 (SAA). 

Further, ‘‘affirmative evidence of bad 

faith on the part of a respondent is not 

required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997). Ternium failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability by failing to answer 

sections A, B, or C of the Department’s 

questionnaire. As a result, we determine 

that Ternium failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with the Department’s request for 

information. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that in selecting from among 

the facts otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 

Stainless Steel Hollow Products From 

Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 

2000) (the Department applied total 

AFA where a respondent failed to 

respond to subsequent antidumping 

questionnaires).2

Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. When selecting an AFA rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, the Department’s practice 

has been to ensure the margin is 

sufficiently adverse to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner. See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

Accordingly, as total AFA, we have 

assigned Ternium the rate of 48.33 

percent, which is the highest calculated 

transaction-specific margin from the 

most recently-completed administrative 

review of this antidumping duty order 

in which a rate was calculated. See 

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe 

From Mexico: Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 66 FR 37454 (July 18, 2001); see 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
78222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 

3Ternium is the successor in interest to Hylsa, 

S.A. de C.V. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from 

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

also Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 39919 

(August 10, 2009) (single-highest 

transaction margin assigned as AFA to 

respondent AVISMA). See 

Memorandum from Christian Marsh to 

Paul Piquado entitled ‘‘Certain Circular 

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from 

Mexico: Use of Facts Available for 

Ternium and the Corroboration of 

Secondary Information,’’ dated 

December 7, 2010 (Facts Available 

Memorandum). We find this rate is 

sufficiently adverse to serve the purpose 

of facts available and is appropriate, as 

it is the highest transaction-specific 

margin determined in the most recently 

completed review in which a rate was 

calculated. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department shall corroborate secondary 

information used for facts available by 

reviewing independent sources 

reasonably at its disposal. Information 

from a prior segment of the proceeding 

constitutes secondary information. See 

SAA at 870; Antifriction Bearings and 

Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 55574, 55577 (September 15, 

2004). The word ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See SAA at 870; see 

also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996). To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will examine, to the extent 

practicable, the reliability and relevance 

of the information used. 

As fully explained in the Facts 

Available Memorandum, the 

Department finds the rate of 48.33 

percent to be reliable and relevant for 

use as AFA. See Facts Available 

Memorandum at 7–8. As such, the 

Department finds this rate to be 

corroborated to the extent practicable 

consistent with section 776(c) of Act. 

We have, therefore, selected the rate of 

48.33 percent to apply as an AFA rate 

to Ternium and consider it to be 

sufficiently high so as to encourage 

participation in future segments of this 

proceeding. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period November 1, 2008, 

through October 31, 2009: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percentage) 

Ternium (formerly known 

as Hylsa 3) ..................... 48.33 

Mueller .............................. 4.81 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose pertinent 

memoranda concerning these 

preliminary results to parties in this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). We shall be 

releasing the sales verification reports 

from this administrative review with 

sufficient time to allow parties to 

comment upon their contents. 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(c). If a hearing is 

requested, the Department will notify 

interested parties of the hearing 

schedule. 

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). Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held two 

days after the deadline for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with each 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue, 

(2) a brief summary of the argument, 

and (3) a table of authorities cited. 

Further, we request that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with an electronic copy 

of the public version of such comments. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of issues in 

any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and 

written comments or at a hearing, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results in the Federal 

Register. 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Upon 

completion of this administrative 

review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), 

the Department will calculate an 

assessment rate on all appropriate 

entries. Mueller has reported entered 

values for all of its sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific duty assessment rates 

on the basis of the ratio of the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales of that importer. These rates will 

be assessed uniformly on all entries the 

respective importers made during the 

POR if these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review. 

Where the assessment rate is above de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. Because 

we are relying on total AFA to establish 

Ternium’s dumping margin, we will 

instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin 

of 48.33 percent ad valorem to all 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR that was produced and/or 

exported by Ternium (except those 

entries produced by Ternium and 

exported by Mueller, to which the 

Mueller assessment will apply). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 356.8(a), the 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to CBP 

on or after 41 days following the 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review, 

the following deposit requirements will 

be effective upon completion of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided in section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 

(1) The cash-deposit rate for Mueller 

and Ternium will be the rate established 

in the final results of this review; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not covered in this review, 

the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 

the company-specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 15, 2010 / Notices 78223 

1On July 2, 2009, the Department published a 

notice of initiation and preliminary results of a 

changed circumstances review and intent to revoke, 

in part, the AD order of certain pasta from Italy, in 

part, with respect to gluten-free pasta. The 

Department gave interested parties an opportunity 

to comment on the preliminary results and notice 

of intent to revoke, but received no comments. The 

Department issued their final results on August 14, 

2009 and revoked the AD order, in part, with 

respect to gluten-free pasta. See Certain Pasta From 

Italy: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation, in 

Part, 74 FR 41120 (August 14, 2009). 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the subject merchandise; (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

segment of the proceeding, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the allothers rate established in the LTFV 

investigation which is 32.62 percent. 

See Antidumping Duty 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. 

The preliminary results of 

administrative review and this notice 

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. 2010–31517 Filed 12–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–475–819] 

Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary 

Results of Countervailing Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review and 

Intent To Revoke, In Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 17, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of a changed circumstances 

review and consideration of revocation, 

in part, of the countervailing duty order 

on certain pasta from Italy. See Certain 

Pasta From Italy: Notice of Initiation of 

Changed Circumstances Review and 

Consideration of Revocation of Order, in 

Part, 75 FR 56992 (September 17, 2010) 

(‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The Department 

confirmed that New World Pasta 

Company, Dakota Growers Pasta 

Company, and American Italian Pasta 

Company (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’) 

have no interest in countervailing duty 

relief from imports of gluten-free pasta. 

Therefore, we are notifying the public of 

our intent to revoke, in part, the 

countervailing duty order as it relates to 

imports of gluten-free pasta, as 

described below. The Department 

invites interested parties to comment on 

these preliminary results.1

DATES: Effective Date: December 15, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Tran or Austin Redington, 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) 482–1503 and (202) 

482–1664, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 24, 1996, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) order on 

certain pasta from Italy. See Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Order and 

Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination: 

Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38544 

(July 24, 1996). On July 29, 2010, the 

Department received a request on behalf 

of H.J. Heinz Company (‘‘Heinz’’) to 

initiate a no-interest changed 

circumstance review and revocation, in 

part, of the CVD order on certain pasta 

from Italy with respect to gluten-free 

pasta. On September 17, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of changed circumstances 

review and consideration of revocation 

of order, in part, with respect to the 

CVD order on certain pasta from Italy 

and invited interested parties to 

comment. See Initiation Notice. 

On September 27, 2010, Petitioners 

expressed a lack of interest in 

maintaining the order with respect to 

gluten-free pasta. See Memorandum to 

the File from Austin Redington, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations Office 1, 

entitled ‘‘Changed Circumstance Review 

of Certain Pasta from Italy: Statement of 

No Opposition from Domestic Industry,’’ 

dated October 13, 2010 (‘‘No Opposition 

Memo’’). On October 12, 2010, Heinz 

submitted comments, restating its 

request that the Department revoke the 

CVD order, in part, with respect to 

gluten-free pasta. On November 30, 

2010, Petitioners confirmed that they 

represent ‘‘substantially all’’ of the 

production of the domestic like product. 

See Memorandum to the File from 

Patricia Tran, Acting Program Manager, 

entitled ‘‘Ex Parte Memorandum: Phone 

Conversation with Counsel for 

Petitioners,’’ dated November 30, 2010 

(‘‘Substantially All Memo’’). 

We received no comments to counter 

Heinz’s request. Although we stated in 

the Initiation Notice that we would 

issue final results within 45 days if all 

parties agreed to the outcome, we have 

instead determined to publish these 

preliminary results of changed 

circumstances review and intent to 

revoke the order, in part, so that our 

intention to revoke is clear to parties 

and our determination may be 

commented upon, as set forth below. 

See 19 CFR 351.222(g)(3)(v). 

Scope of Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta 

in packages of five pounds four ounces 

or less, whether or not enriched or 

fortified or containing milk or other 

optional ingredients such as chopped 

vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, 

gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and 

flavorings, and up to two percent egg 

white. The pasta covered by the scope 

of the order is typically sold in the retail 

market, in fiberboard or cardboard 

cartons, or polyethylene or 

polypropylene bags of varying 

dimensions. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are refrigerated, frozen, or canned 

pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, 

with the exception of non-egg dry pasta 

containing up to two percent egg white. 

Also excluded are imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by the 

Instituto Mediterraneo Di Certificazione, 

Bioagricoop S.r.l., QC&I International 

Services, Ecocert Italia, Consorzio per il 

Controllo dei Prodotti Biologici, 

Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura 

Biologica, or Codex S.r.l. In addition, 

based on publicly available information, 

the Department has determined that, as 

of August 4, 2004, imports of organic 

pasta from Italy that are accompanied by 

the appropriate certificate issued by 

Bioagricert S.r.l. are also excluded from 

the order. See Memorandum from Eric 

B. Greynolds to Melissa G. Skinner, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with NOTICES