```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20782-20788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8383]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-502]

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded 
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. This review covers the 
respondents, Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited (Pacific Pipe) and 
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. (Saha Thai). The Department 
preliminarily determines that sales of circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes have been made below normal value (NV) during the March 
1, 2010, through February 28, 2011 period of review (POR). The 
preliminary results are listed below in the section titled 
``Preliminary Results of Review.'' Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Andrew 
Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-5255 or (202) 482-4261, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and 
tubes from Thailand. See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986). On 
March 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of the order. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 11197 (March 1, 
2011). On March 23, 2011, and March 31, 2011, respectively, Pacific 
Pipe and Saha Thai requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of their sales of circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from Thailand in the U.S. market.

[[Page 20783]]

On March 31, 2011, Wheatland Tube Company, a producer of the domestic 
like product, requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai. On April 27, 2011, the Department 
initiated an administrative review of Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 76 FR 23545 (April 27, 2011).
    On May 26, 2011, the Department issued an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Pacific Pipe. On June 14, 2011, Pacific Pipe submitted 
its Section A response. On June 16, 2011, Pacific Pipe requested an 
extension of time to respond to Sections B and C of the initial 
questionnaire until July 1, 2011. On June 29, 2011 Pacific Pipe 
requested an additional extension to submit its initial response to 
Sections B and C of the initial questionnaire, which the Department 
approved by letter on July 1, 2011. On July 11, 2011, Pacific Pipe 
submitted its responses to Sections B and C.
    During the course of Pacific Pipe's only previous review, a new 
shipper review, no domestic interested party filed a below cost 
allegation with the Department. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 
and Tubes from Thailand; Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 75 FR 4529 (January 28, 2010). Thus, the Department did not 
initially issue Section D of the questionnaire to Pacific Pipe. 
However, a domestic interested party submitted an allegation of sales 
below cost at the outset of this administrative review. Based on our 
analysis of the allegation, we found that there were reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that Pacific Pipe's sales of pipes and tubes in 
its home market were made at prices below the cost of production (COP). 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we initiated 
a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales were made 
at prices below COP. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from the 
Team, ``Petitioner's Allegations of Sales Below the Cost of Production 
for Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited,'' dated October 17, 2011.
    Thus, on October 18, 2011, we issued Section D of the questionnaire 
to Pacific Pipe. On December 7, 2011, Pacific Pipe submitted its 
response to Section D. We issued supplemental questionnaires to Pacific 
Pipe from September 2011 through February 2012 to which Pacific Pipe 
timely responded.
    On May 11, 2011, the Department issued a questionnaire to Saha 
Thai. On May 24, 2011, Saha Thai requested an extension of time to 
respond to Section A of the questionnaire; we granted this extension in 
a letter dated May 25, 2011. On June 13, 2011, Saha Thai submitted its 
response to Section A of the original questionnaire. On June 28, 2011, 
the Department granted Saha Thai until July 11, 2011, to submit its 
response to Sections B, C, and D of the Department's original 
questionnaire; on July 11, 2011, Saha Thai submitted its response to 
Sections B, C, and D. On December 21, 2011, the Department issued an 
additional supplemental questionnaire for Sections A, B, and C. On 
January 5, 2012, the Department issued an additional extension until 
January 12, 2012. On December 28, 2011, the Department issued a Section 
D supplemental questionnaire. On January 9, 2012, we granted Saha Thai 
an extension until January 26, 2012, to respond to the Section D 
supplemental questionnaire. On February 6, 2012, the Department issued 
an additional supplemental questionnaire for Section D. On February 14, 
2012, the Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire 
for Sections B and C. On February 16, 2012, the Department granted Saha 
Thai an extension for submitting both the narrative and data portions 
of the Section B, C, and D supplemental questionnaires and on February 
27, 2012, Saha Thai submitted responses. On March 20, 2012, the 
Department issued an additional supplemental questionnaire for Section 
D, which is currently due on April 10, 2012. This response will be 
considered for the final results of review.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the antidumping order are certain circular 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject 
merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not 
exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in 
the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural tubing'' are 
hereinafter designated as ``pipes and tubes.'' The merchandise is 
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 
7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and purposes of U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), our written description of the 
scope is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of circular welded carbon steel pipes 
and tubes from Thailand were made at less than NV, we compared the 
export price (EP) of both Pacific Pipe's sales and Saha Thai's sales 
made to unaffiliated customers in the United States to NV, as described 
below in the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act), we compared the EP of individual transactions to monthly 
weighted-average NVs.

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, we determined products 
described in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, sold by Pacific 
Pipe and Saha Thai in Thailand during the POR to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. We have relied on six criteria to match U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise to comparison-market sales: grade, size (nominal 
pipe size), wall thickness, schedule of pipe sold, surface finish, and 
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 home 
market sales of the most similar foreign like product on the basis of 
the characteristics listed above.
    In order to make the product comparisons more accurate, we have 
made some adjustments to the ordering of codes reported by both Pacific 
Pipe and Saha Thai for the ``grade'' characteristic. For more 
information, see Memorandum to the File from Andrew Huston, ``Analysis 
Memorandum of Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand for the Period 03/01/
2010 through 02/28/2011,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Pacific 
Pipe Preliminary Analysis Memorandum), and Memorandum to the File from 
Jacqueline Arrowsmith, ``Analysis Memorandum of Saha Thai Steel Pipe 
(Public) Company, Ltd. for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes from Thailand for the Period 03/01/2010 through 02/28/2011,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice (Saha Thai Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum). Interested parties will have 10 days from the date of 
publication of these preliminary results to submit new factual 
information to be considered

[[Page 20784]]

with respect to the changes made by the Department to the matching 
criteria. Comments on the product comparisons used in these preliminary 
results as well as comments on any new factual information should be 
included in the case and rebuttal briefs.

Date of Sale

Pacific Pipe

    The Department normally uses the date of invoice as the date of 
sale, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the 
ordinary course of business, unless a different date better reflects 
the date on which the material terms of sale are established. See 19 
CFR 351.401(i). For Pacific Pipe, we preliminarily determine that no 
departure from our standard practice is warranted. For purposes of this 
review, we examined whether Pacific Pipe's reported invoice date for 
its home market sales and its pro forma invoice date for its U.S. sales 
were the appropriate dates of sale. The record for Pacific Pipe does 
not indicate that material terms of sale are established at an earlier 
or later date in the sales process than the invoice date in the home 
market and the pro forma invoice date in the U.S. market.\1\ Therefore, 
we preliminarily determine that the two invoice dates reported by 
Pacific Pipe as its dates of sale are the appropriate dates of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``pro forma invoice'' is used only in the U.S. market. 
Its purpose relates to the letters of credit used to pay for U.S. 
sales. While a separate commercial invoice is issued later in the 
sales process for U.S. sales, the terms of sale are fixed in the 
``pro forma invoice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saha Thai

    For Saha Thai, we preliminarily determine that contract date is the 
appropriate date of sale for U.S. sales in this administrative review 
because it best represents the date upon which the final material terms 
of sale were established. This is consistent with the most recently 
completed administrative review of this proceeding. See Circular Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Preliminary Results and 
Rescission, in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
18788, 18790 (April 13, 2010) (2008-2009 Preliminary Results), 
unchanged in Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 
FR 64696 (October 20, 2010) (2008-2009 Final Results). In the home 
market, the date of invoice is when material terms of sale are 
established. Therefore, we are using the invoice date as the date of 
sale for home market sales. This is consistent with the most recently 
completed administrative review of this proceeding. Id.

Margin Calculation

Export Price

Pacific Pipe

    The Department based the price of all U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise by Pacific Pipe on EP as defined in section 772(a) of the 
Act because the merchandise was sold by Pacific Pipe to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States before importation. We calculated EP 
based on the FOB port price charged to the unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. See section 772(c) of the Act. We made adjustments 
to price for domestic inland freight, inland insurance, and domestic 
inland brokerage reported by Pacific Pipe.
    Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act states that EP should be increased 
by the amount of any import duties ``imposed by the country of 
exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, 
by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. * * *.'' Pacific Pipe claimed an adjustment to EP for the 
duties rebated or exempted on its imports of hot-rolled steel coil. In 
determining whether an adjustment should be made to EP for this rebate 
or exemption, we look for a reasonable link between the duties imposed 
and those rebated or exempted. We do not require that the imported 
input be traced directly from importation through exportation. We do 
require, however, that the company meet our ``two-pronged'' test in 
order for this addition to be made to EP. The first element is that the 
import duty and its rebate or exemption be directly linked to, and 
dependent upon, one another; the second element is that the company 
must demonstrate that there were sufficient imports of the imported 
material to account for the duty drawback or exemption granted for the 
export of the manufactured product. See, e.g., Saha Thai Steel Pipe 
(Public) Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1335, 1340-1341 (Fed. Cir. 
2011).
    Pacific Pipe did not demonstrate how it met the second prong of our 
``two-pronged'' test. Specifically, despite being given three 
opportunities to do so, Pacific Pipe did not demonstrate how the 
imported material was sufficient to account for the total of the import 
duties rebated or exempted for the export of the manufactured product 
during the relevant time period. Thus, we are not making an adjustment 
for a duty drawback rebate or exemption.
    Pacific Pipe submitted information about the Blue Corner Rebate and 
requested a duty drawback adjustment for this program as well on 
relevant sales. For these preliminary results, we are not making an 
adjustment to EP because Pacific Pipe did not provide information to 
show how the Blue Corner Rebate fulfills each of the two prongs of our 
two-pronged test described above.

Saha Thai

    We classified all of Saha Thai's sales to its U.S. customers as EP 
sales because, pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, we found that 
Saha Thai is not affiliated with its distributors, which are the first 
purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) 
of the Act, we made deductions from the gross unit price for foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland 
insurance, foreign warehousing, ocean freight, lighterage charges, U.S. 
brokerage and handling charges, and U.S. duties. In our review of the 
sales contracts, we learned that gross unit price contained freight 
revenue. We used the information contained in these sales contracts in 
conjunction with the sales database to derive an invoice-specific 
freight revenue amount for each transaction where freight revenue was 
incurred. We are following our normal practice with regard to capping 
the amount of freight revenue allowed by the amount of the freight 
expense incurred. See, e.g., Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent 
to Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 50999 (August 18, 2010) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    Saha Thai claimed an adjustment to EP for the duties exempted on 
its imports of hot-rolled steel coil into a bonded warehouse. As 
explained above, in determining whether an adjustment should be made to 
EP for this exemption, we have a ``two-pronged'' test. Saha Thai has 
provided information that demonstrates that it meets both prongs of our 
``two-pronged'' test. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we are 
making an upward adjustment to export price for these duty exemptions. 
See Saha Thai Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of 
pipes and tubes in the home market to serve as a viable basis for 
calculating NVs, we

[[Page 20785]]

compared the volume of each respondent's 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) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.404(b), 
because both Pacific Pipe's and Saha Thai's aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent 
of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we 
find that the home market is viable for comparison purposes for both 
respondents. See Pacific Pipe's questionnaire response, dated June 14, 
2011, at Exhibit 1; Pacific Pipe's supplemental questionnaire response, 
dated October 24, 2011, at Exhibit S2-1; Saha Thai's questionnaire 
response, dated June 13, 2011, at Exhibit A-1; and Saha Thai's 
supplemental questionnaire response, dated July 11, 2011, at Exhibit A-
1.

B. Affiliated Party Transactions and the Arm's-Length Test

Pacific Pipe

    Pacific Pipe did not have sales to affiliates in the home market.

Saha Thai

    The Department's practice with respect to the use of home market 
sales to affiliated parties for NV is to determine whether such sales 
are at arm's-length prices. To examine whether home market sales were 
made at arm's length, we compared on a product- and level of trade 
(LOT)-specific basis the starting price of sales to affiliated 
customers to the starting price of sales to unaffiliated customers, net 
of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and 
packing. Where the prices to the affiliated party were, on average for 
all products, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the same or 
comparable merchandise to all unaffiliated parties, we determined that 
all of the sales made to that affiliated party were at arm's length. 
See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary 
Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (November 15, 2002). Where the 
affiliated party did not pass the arm's-length test, the Department 
excluded all sales to that affiliated party from the NV calculation. 
With certain exceptions, because such sales were either consumed by the 
affiliate or were in insignificant volumes, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.403(d), we did not rely on downstream sales in place of the 
excluded sales to the affiliate. For the exceptions, we relied on 
downstream sales reported by the affiliated reseller.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    We examined the cost data for both Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai and 
determined that our quarterly cost methodology was not warranted. 
Therefore, we have applied our standard cost methodology, using POR 
costs based on the reported data, adjusted as described below.

Pacific Pipe

    As discussed above, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation 
regarding Pacific Pipe's sales in this review. In accordance with 
section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of 
Pacific Pipe's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, interest expenses, and home market packing costs. Details 
regarding the calculation of COP, including adjustments made to the COP 
reported by Pacific Pipe, as well as other calculation details, can be 
found in the Pacific Pipe Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, with 
attached SAS program logs and outputs, and the Memorandum from James 
Balog to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Pacific Pipe 
Public Company Limited,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Pacific 
Pipe Preliminary Cost Memorandum).
    We revised Pacific Pipe's reported costs as follows. We increased 
Pacific Pipe's reported general and administrative (G&A) expenses to 
include relevant expenses incurred by its parent company. See Pacific 
Pipe Preliminary Cost Memorandum. We revised Pacific Pipe's financial 
expense ratio calculation to be based on its consolidated financial 
statements rather than its unconsolidated financial statements as 
reported. We increased Pacific Pipe's reported cost of manufacturing 
(COM) to adjust for an unexplained difference between its reported 
production quantities and the production quantities included in its 
normal books and records. We increased Pacific Pipe's reported COM to 
account for an unreconciled difference between its submitted costs and 
the costs recorded in its normal books and records. For CONNUMs which 
were sold but not produced, we used the Department's normal model match 
analysis to determine the cost of the most similar product produced 
during the POR.

Saha Thai

    We found that Saha Thai made sales below cost in the most recently 
completed segment of this proceeding in which Saha Thai was examined, 
and such sales were disregarded. See 2008-2009 Preliminary Results, 75 
FR at 18792, unchanged in 2008-2009 Final Results. Thus, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum 
of Saha Thai's cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like 
product, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, interest expenses, and home 
market packing costs. Details regarding the calculation of COP, 
including adjustments made to the COP reported by Saha Thai, as well as 
other calculation details can be found in the Saha Thai Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum, with attached SAS program logs and outputs, as 
well as the Memorandum from LaVonne Clark to Neal M. Halper, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice (Saha Thai Preliminary Cost 
Memorandum).
    We disallowed Saha Thai's reported scrap offset because it included 
revenues from sales of non-prime merchandise. We increased Saha Thai's 
reported painting labor costs to reflect the higher of transfer or 
market prices in accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act. We also 
increased Saha Thai's reported COM for the unreconciled difference 
between the reported costs and Saha Thai's normal books and records. We 
revised the numerator of Saha Thai's G&A expense ratio to exclude 
profit from galvanizing services, duty refunds for hot-rolled coil 
purchased prior to the POR, and insurance claims for damaged goods 
related to specific sales. We revised the denominator of the G&A 
expense ratio to include the cost of sales and services less movement 
costs, packing expenses, and zinc scrap offsets. For reasons explained 
in the business proprietary cost memorandum, we set Saha Thai's 
financial expense ratio to zero. For more information on the changes to 
Saha Thai's COP, see Saha Thai Preliminary Cost Memorandum.

D. Cost of Production Test

    For both respondents, we compared the revised COP figures to home 
market prices on a product-specific basis, net of applicable billing 
adjustments, discounts and rebates, movement charges, selling expenses, 
and packing, to determine whether home market sales

[[Page 20786]]

had been made at prices below COP. In determining whether to disregard 
home market sales made at prices below 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 did not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in 
the normal course of trade.
    In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a given product was sold at prices less than COP, we 
disregarded no below-cost sales of that product, because the below-cost 
sales were not made in ``substantial quantities.'' However, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales that: (1) Have been made within an 
extended period of time (within six months to one year) in substantial 
quantities (20 percent or more), as defined by section 773(b)(2)(B) and 
(C) of the Act; and (2) were not made at prices which permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, as prescribed by 
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Accordingly, we determined to 
disregard certain of Pacific Pipe's and Saha Thai's sales in the 
calculation of NV because (1) 20 percent or more of a given product was 
sold at prices less than COP and (2) based on our comparison of prices 
to weighted-average COP values for the POR, they were made at prices 
that would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period 
of time. We used the remaining home market sales for both Pacific Pipe 
and Saha Thai as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Pacific Pipe Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum and Saha Thai Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

E. Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used 
constructed value (CV) for Pacific Pipe as the basis for NV when there 
were no above-cost and contemporaneous sales of identical or similar 
merchandise in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance 
with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost of materials and 
fabrication, SG&A expenses, and profit. In accordance with the Act, we 
based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by 
Pacific Pipe in connection with production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the home 
market. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market 
selling expenses. We made the same adjustments to Pacific Pipe's 
reported costs as noted in the COP section above. See Pacific Pipe 
Preliminary Cost Memorandum.
    After disregarding certain home market sales priced below cost, as 
described above, home market sales of contemporaneous identical and 
similar products existed that allowed for price-to-price comparisons 
for all U.S. sales for Saha Thai. Therefore, the Department did not 
rely on CV for its dumping margin calculations for Saha Thai for these 
preliminary results. See Saha Thai Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.

F. Price-to-Price Comparisons

Pacific Pipe

    We calculated NV based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the home market. We used Pacific Pipe's adjustments and deductions 
as reported. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland 
freight pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) for home 
market and U.S. credit expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 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, respectively. Finally, where 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable 
to differences in the physical characteristics of the sales matched, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

Saha Thai

    We calculated NV based on Saha Thai's home market net price. We 
used Saha Thai's discounts and movement expenses as reported. We made 
deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and 
warehousing expenses. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.410, we made a COS adjustment for home market and U.S. 
credit expenses, as well as U.S. bank charges. 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, respectively. Finally, where 
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable 
to differences in the physical characteristics of the sales matched, 
pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

Level of Trade

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, NV is normally the price that is in the home market that 
is at the same LOT as the EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price 
sale in the comparison market, or when NV is based on CV, that of the 
sales from which we derive SG&A and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is the 
level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to 
importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing and selling functions along 
the chain of distribution between the producer and unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects the price comparability, as manifested in a 
pattern of consistent price differences between sales at different 
levels of trade in the country in which NV is determined, we make an 
LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c). See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South 
Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

Pacific Pipe

    In the home market, Pacific Pipe reported its sales to several 
customer categories through two channels of distribution: Ex-factory 
and direct shipments from Pacific Pipe to its customer. Pacific Pipe 
reported that the selling functions in the home market do not differ 
between the two channels of distribution nor among different customer 
categories. See Pacific Pipe supplemental questionnaire response, dated 
October 24, 2011, at Exhibit S2-3. In the U.S. market, Pacific Pipe 
reported that the selling functions (other than freight) are identical 
to the selling functions in the home market. Our preliminary analysis 
of Pacific Pipe's responses indicates selling functions do not vary 
significantly by customer category,\2\ channel of distribution, or 
market. While there is a difference between the home and U.S. markets 
in terms of arranging freight, this difference appears insignificant. 
For a full analysis, see ``Level of Trade'' section in the Pacific Pipe 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While there is no evidence on the record indicating 
differences in selling functions depending on customer category, the 
Department intends to ask for additional information in a post-
preliminary supplemental, as it appears some customers would 
typically require a greater level of assistance than others. We 
intend to require Pacific Pipe to clarify its responses indicating 
that no distinctions at all among customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saha Thai

    For the U.S. market, Saha Thai reported only one LOT for its EP 
sales.

[[Page 20787]]

For its home market sales, Saha Thai reported that its sales to 
unaffiliated customers were at the same LOT as its U.S. sales. However, 
Saha Thai reported that, if the Department used the downstream sales of 
any of its affiliated resellers, these sales were made at a distinct 
LOT. Thus, it claims, in such circumstances, its home market would 
consist of two LOTs. As such, Saha Thai provided information about the 
marketing and selling functions performed by the affiliated resellers 
for their sales to unaffiliated customers. See Saha Thai's Section A 
questionnaire response, dated June 13, 2011 at 20-28 and Exhibit A-9.
    Our preliminary analysis of Saha Thai's responses indicates selling 
functions do not vary significantly by customer category \3\ or market, 
but do vary by distribution channel. Specifically, we preliminarily 
find that Saha Thai sold at two LOTs in the home market (sales directly 
to customers and sales through affiliated resellers), and at one LOT in 
the U.S. market (sales directly to customers).\4\ For our complete 
analysis, see ``Level of Trade'' section in the Saha Thai Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum; see also 2008-2009 Preliminary Final Results, 75 
FR at 18792-93, unchanged in 2008-2009 Final Results. The Saha Thai 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum includes the Department's conclusions 
in chart form indicating how selling functions vary by distribution 
channel, and how they do not otherwise vary by customer or market. 
However, because we were able to match all U.S. sales to home market 
sales at a comparable LOT, no LOT adjustment was necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While there is no evidence on the record indicating 
differences in selling functions depending on customer category, the 
Department intends to ask for additional information in a post-
preliminary supplemental, as it appears some customers would 
typically require a greater level of assistance than others. We 
intend to require Pacific Pipe to clarify its responses indicating 
that no distinctions at all among customers.
    \4\ As discussed above, we excluded sales to several affiliated 
resellers that did not pass the arm's-length test. For one remaining 
affiliated reseller, whose sales also did not pass the arm's-length 
test, we used downstream sales reported by the affiliated reseller.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversions

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we made 
currency conversions for Pacific Pipe and Saha Thai sales based on the 
daily exchange rates in effect on the dates of the relevant U.S. sales 
as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period March 1, 2010, 
through February 28, 2011.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                       dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited........................         5.81
Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd.................         1.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where Pacific 
Pipe or Saha Thai reported the entered value for its sales, we will 
calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those same sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b). However, 
where Pacific Pipe or Saha Thai did not report the entered value for 
its sales, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) 
per unit duty assessment rates.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, 
as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established 
in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, 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 period; (3) if the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less than 
fair value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
review or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be the 
``all other'' rate of 15.67 percent established in the LTFV 
investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes From Thailand, 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986). These 
deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this review within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice 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. Parties submitting written comments must submit 
them pursuant to the Department's e-filing regulations. See https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf or Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). 
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. Unless extended by the Department, interested 
parties must submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed not later than five 
days after the time limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) 
and (d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
review 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. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, 
including footnotes.
    We intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results 
in the Federal Register, unless otherwise extended. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

[[Page 20788]]

    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

     Dated: March 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-8383 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```