Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19211 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) 

of the Act, if our final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we will disclose to the 

parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of our announcement. We intend 

to release a letter to all interested parties 

that establishes the deadline for 

submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(i) (for a further discussion of 

case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed 

within five days after the deadline for 

submission of case briefs, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of 

authorities relied upon, a table of 

contents, and an executive summary of 

issues should accompany any briefs 

submitted to the Department. Executive 

summaries should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a public 

hearing to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will be held 

two days after the deadline for 

submission of the rebuttal briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must electronically submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

using IA ACCESS, within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain: (1) The party’s name, address, 

and telephone; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

See id. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7726 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–552–810] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

preliminarily determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

circular welded carbon-quality steel 

pipe (‘‘circular welded pipe’’) from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’). For information on the 

estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Austin Redington or Christopher 

Siepmann, 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) 482–1664 or 

(202) 482–7958, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioners 

The petitioners in this investigation 

are Wheatland Tube, Allied Tube and 

Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and United 

States Steel Corporation (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the Department 

of Commerce’s (‘‘Department’’) notice of 

initiation in the Federal Register. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From India, the Sultanate of 

Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigations, 76 FR 72173 (November 

22, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’), and the 

accompanying Initiation Checklist. 

On December 16, 2011, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

published its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

of circular welded pipe from India, 

Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and 

Vietnam. See Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, Oman, 

the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, 

76 FR 78313 (December 16, 2011). 

The Department released U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

entry data for U.S. imports of circular 

welded pipe from Vietnam between 

January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010, 

to be used as the basis for respondent 

selection. See Memorandum from 

Joshua Morris, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst to the File, 

‘‘Release of Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Data,’’ dated 

November 22, 2011. The CBP entry data 

covered products included in this 

investigation which entered under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) numbers 

likely to include subject merchandise: 

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. 

On December 15, 2011, the 

Department issued its respondent 

selection analysis. Given available 

resources, the Department determined it 

could examine no more than two 

producers/exporters and selected SeAH 

Steel VINA Corp. (‘‘SeAH VINA’’) and 

Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan 

Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Haiphong Hongyuan’’). See 

Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach, 

Office Director, to Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, ‘‘Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ 

dated December 15, 2011. These 

companies were the two largest 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise, based on aggregate 

volume, to the United States. 

On December 19, 2011, the 

Department postponed the deadline for 

the preliminary determination in this 

investigation until March 26, 2012. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, 

the United Arab Emirates, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19212 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

Determinations in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 78615 

(December 19, 2011). In conjunction 

with this postponement, the Department 

also postponed the deadline for the 

submission of new subsidy allegations 

until February 15, 2012. See 

Memorandum to the File from Joshua S. 

Morris, ‘‘New Subsidy Allegation 

Deadline: Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam,’’ dated December 15, 2011. 

On January 3, 2012, SeAH VINA 

requested that the Department terminate 

the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation of circular welded pipe 

from Vietnam, stating that in a recent 

decision the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) found that 

the Department does not have the 

authority to apply the CVD law to 

countries the Department considers 

non-market economies. On January 12, 

2012, the Government of Vietnam 

(‘‘GOV’’) also requested that the 

Department terminate the CVD 

investigation pursuant to the CAFC’s 

ruling. 

On December 20, 2011, the 

Department issued CVD questionnaires 

to the GOV, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong 

Hongyuan. We received initial 

questionnaire responses (‘‘IQR’’) from 

the GOV, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong 

Hongyuan on February 16, 2012. 

Supplemental questionnaires were sent 

to the GOV, SeAH VINA, and Haiphong 

Hongyuan on February 27, 2012. We 

received a supplemental questionnaire 

response (‘‘SQR’’) from Haiphong 

Hongyuan to the supplemental 

questionnaire on March 9, 2012, and we 

received SQRs from the GOV and SeAH 

VINA to the supplemental questionnaire 

on March 12, 2012. 

One of the petitioning parties, 

Wheatland Tube, requested two 

extensions of the deadline for filing new 

subsidy allegations. As a result, this 

deadline was extended from February 

15 to February 24, and then to February 

28, 2012. See Memorandum to the File 

from Susan Kuhbach, ‘‘New Subsidy 

Allegation Deadline: Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam,’’ dated February 6, 2012, and 

Letter to Interested Parties, dated 

February 24, 2012. No new subsidy 

allegations were received in this 

investigation. 

We received deficiency comments on 

the GOV’s, SeAH VINA’s, and Haiphong 

Hongyuan’s responses from Wheatland 

Tube on February 22, 2012 (‘‘Deficiency 

Comments’’). We received prepreliminary comments from Wheatland 

Tube on March 14, 2012. On March 19, 

2012, we received pre-preliminary 

comments from SeAH. We received 

additional pre-preliminary comments 

from Wheatland Tube on March 20, 

2012. 

The GOV failed to respond to some of 

the Department’s February 27, 2012 

questions in its March 12, 2012 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

Rather than requesting an extension of 

the deadline to submit responsive 

information, the GOV informed the 

Department that it did not have time to 

gather requested information regarding 

certain banks in time for the 

questionnaire’s deadline. The GOV 

thereafter submitted its responses to 

these questions on March 16, 2012. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d)(i), we are 

rejecting this untimely filed information 

and will notify the GOV as specified by 

19 CFR 351.302(2). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, i.e., the period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’), is January 1, 

2010, through December 31, 2010. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations, we set 

aside a period of time in our Initiation 

Notice for parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage, and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 calendar days of 

publication of that notice. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997), and Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 

72173. On December 5, 2011, SeAH 

VINA filed comments arguing that the 

treatment of double and triple stenciled 

pipe in the scope of these investigations 

differs from previous treatment of these 

products under other orders on circular 

welded pipe. Specifically, SeAH VINA 

claims that the Brazilian, Korean, and 

Mexican orders on these products 

exclude ‘‘Standard pipe that is dual or 

triple certified/stenciled that enters the 

U.S. as line pipe of a kind used for oil 

and gas pipelines * * *’’ See, e.g., 

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy 

Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of 

Korea, and Taiwan; and Certain 

Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes From Taiwan: Final Results of the 

Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 66899, 

66900 (Oct. 28, 2011). According to 

SeAH VINA: (i) if the term ‘‘class or 

kind of merchandise’’ has meaning, it 

cannot have a different meaning when 

applied to the same products in two 

different cases; and (ii) the distinction 

between standard and line pipe 

reflected in the Brazil, Korean and 

Mexican orders derives from customs 

classifications administered by CBP 

and, thus, is more administrable. 

On December 14, 2011, Allied Tube 

and Conduit, JMC Steel Group, and 

Wheatland Tube (collectively, ‘‘certain 

Petitioners’’) responded to SeAH VINA’s 

comments stating that the scope as it 

appeared in the Initiation Notice 

reflected Petitioners’ intended coverage. 

Certain Petitioners contend that pipe 

that is multi-stenciled to both line pipe 

and standard pipe specifications and 

meets the physical characteristics listed 

in the scope (i.e., is 32 feet in length or 

less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in 

outside diameter; has a galvanized and/ 

or painted (e.g., polyester coated) 

surface finish; or has a threaded and/or 

coupled end finish) is ordinarily used in 

standard pipe applications. In recent 

years, certain Petitioners state, the 

Department has rejected end-use scope 

classifications, preferring instead to rely 

on physical characteristics to define 

coverage, and the scope of these 

investigations has been written 

accordingly. Therefore, certain 

Petitioners ask the Department to reject 

SeAH VINA’s proposed scope 

modification. 

We agree with certain Petitioners that 

the Department seeks to define the 

scopes of its proceedings based on the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon 

Quality Steel Pipe From the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Moreover, we disagree with SeAH 

VINA’s contention that once a ‘‘class or 

kind of merchandise’’ has been 

established that the same scope 

description must apply across all 

proceedings involving the product. For 

example, as the Department has gained 

experience in administering 

antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) and CVD 

orders, it has shifted away from end use 

classifications to scopes defined by the 

physical characteristics. Id. Thus, 

proceedings initiated on a given product 

many years ago may have end use 

classifications while more recent 

proceedings on the product would not. 

Compare Countervailing Duty Order: Oil 

Country Tubular Goods from Canada, 

51 FR 21783 (June 16, 1986) (describing 

subject merchandise as being ‘‘intended 

for use in drilling for oil and gas’’) with 

Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19213 

1Finished scaffolding is defined as component 

parts of a final, finished scaffolding that enters the 

United States unassembled as a ‘‘kit.’’ A ‘‘kit’’ is 

understood to mean a packaged combination of 

component parts that contain, at the time of 

importation, all the necessary component parts to 

fully assemble a final, finished scaffolding. 

Amended Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination and 

Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 3203 

(January 20, 2010) (describing the 

subject merchandise in terms of 

physical characteristics without regard 

to use or intended use). Finally, certain 

Petitioners have indicated the domestic 

industry’s intent to include multistenciled products that otherwise meet 

the physical characteristics set out in 

the scope. Therefore, the Department is 

not adopting SeAH VINA’s proposed 

modification of the scope. 

Scope of the Investigation 

This investigation covers welded 

carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of 

circular cross-section, with an outside 

diameter (‘‘O.D.’’) not more than 16 

inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall 

thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, 

galvanized, or painted), end finish 

(plain end, beveled end, grooved, 

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or 

industry specification (e.g., American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

International (‘‘ASTM’’), proprietary, or 

other) generally known as standard 

pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler 

pipe, and structural pipe (although 

subject product may also be referred to 

as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the 

term ‘‘carbon quality’’ includes products 

in which: (a) Iron predominates, by 

weight, over each of the other contained 

elements; (b) the carbon content is 2 

percent or less, by weight; and (c) none 

of the elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity, by weight, as indicated: 

(i) 1.80 percent of manganese; 

(ii) 2.25 percent of silicon; 

(iii) 1.00 percent of copper; 

(iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum; 

(v) 1.25 percent of chromium; 

(vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt; 

(vii) 0.40 percent of lead; 

(viii) 1.25 percent of nickel; 

(ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten; 

(x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum; 

(xi) 0.10 percent of niobium; 

(xii) 0.41 percent of titanium; 

(xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; 

(xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Subject pipe is ordinarily made to 

ASTM specifications A53, A135, and 

A795, but can also be made to other 

specifications. Structural pipe is made 

primarily to ASTM specifications A252 

and A500. Standard and structural pipe 

may also be produced to proprietary 

specifications rather than to industry 

specifications. Fence tubing is included 

in the scope regardless of certification to 

a specification listed in the exclusions 

below, and can also be made to the 

ASTM A513 specification. Sprinkler 

pipe is designed for sprinkler fire 

suppression systems and may be made 

to industry specifications such as ASTM 

A53 or to proprietary specifications. 

These products are generally made to 

standard O.D. and wall thickness 

combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a 

standard and/or structural specification 

and to other specifications, such as 

American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

API–5L specification, is also covered by 

the scope of this investigation when it 

meets the physical description set forth 

above, and also has one or more of the 

following characteristics: Is 32 feet in 

length or less; is less than 2.0 inches 

(50mm) in outside diameter; has a 

galvanized and/or painted (e.g., 

polyester coated) surface finish; or has 

a threaded and/or coupled end finish. 

The scope of this investigation does 

not include: (a) Pipe suitable for use in 

boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, 

refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, 

whether or not cold drawn; (b) finished 

electrical conduit; (c) finished 

scaffolding 1; (d) tube and pipe hollows 

for redrawing; (e) oil country tubular 

goods produced to API specifications; (f) 

line pipe produced to only API 

specifications; and (g) mechanical 

tubing, whether or not cold-drawn. 

However, products certified to ASTM 

mechanical tubing specifications are not 

excluded as mechanical tubing if they 

otherwise meet the standard sizes (e.g., 

outside diameter and wall thickness) of 

standard, structural, fence and sprinkler 

pipe. Also, products made to the 

following outside diameter and wall 

thickness combinations, which are 

recognized by the industry as typical for 

fence tubing, would not be excluded 

from the scope based solely on their 

being certified to ASTM mechanical 

tubing specifications: 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.035 inch wall 

thickness (gage 20) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall 

thickness (gage 14) 

1.315 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.083 inch wall 

thickness (gage 14) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.660 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

1.900 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.047 inch wall 

thickness (gage 18) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.055 inch wall 

thickness (gage 17) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.065 inch wall 

thickness (gage 16) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.072 inch wall 

thickness (gage 15) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.095 inch wall 

thickness (gage 13) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.375 inch O.D. and 0.120 inch wall 

thickness (gage 11) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.134 inch wall 

thickness (gage 10) 

2.875 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.109 inch wall 

thickness (gage 12) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall 

thickness (gage 9) 

3.500 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

4.000 inch O.D. and 0.148 inch wall 

thickness (gage 9) 

4.000 inch O.D. and 0.165 inch wall 

thickness (gage 8) 

4.500 inch O.D. and 0.203 inch wall 

thickness (gage 7) 

The pipe subject to this investigation 

is currently classifiable in Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers 

7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 

7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 

7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 

7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 

7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under the investigation is 

dispositive. 

Alignment of Final Determination 

On November 22, 2011, the 

Department initiated an AD 

investigation concurrent with this CVD 

investigation of circular welded pipe 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19214 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

from Vietnam. See Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India, 

the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72164 

(November 22, 2011). The scope of the 

merchandise being covered is the same 

for both the AD and CVD investigations. 

On March 23, 2012, Petitioners 

submitted a letter, in accordance with 

section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requesting alignment of the final CVD 

determination with the final 

determination in the companion AD 

investigation. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the final CVD 

determination will be issued on the 

same date as the final AD 

determination, which is currently 

scheduled to be issued on August 6, 

2012. 

Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to Imports From Vietnam 

On April 1, 2010, the Department 

published Bags from Vietnam Final 

Determination in which we found the 

CVD law applicable to Vietnam. See 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, 75 FR 16428 (April 1, 

2010) (‘‘Bags from Vietnam Final 

Determination’’), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum. 

Furthermore, on March 13, 2012, HR 

4105 was enacted which makes clear 

that the Department has the authority to 

apply the CVD law to non-market 

economies such as Vietnam. The 

effective date provision of the enacted 

legislation makes clear that this 

provision applies to this proceeding. 

See HR 4105, 112th Cong. 1(b) (2012) 

(enacted). 

Additionally, for reasons stated in 

Bags from Vietnam Final Determination, 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3, we are 

using the date of January 11, 2007, the 

date on which Vietnam became a 

member of the WTO, as the date from 

which the Department will identify and 

measures subsidies in Vietnam for 

purposes of CVD investigations. 

Subsidies Valuation Information 

Allocation Period 

The average useful life (‘‘AUL’’) 

period in this proceeding, as described 

in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), is 15 years 

according to the U.S. Internal Revenue 

Service’s 1977 Class Life Asset 

Depreciation Range System. See U.S. 

Internal Revenue Service Publication 

946 (2008), How to Depreciate Property, 

at Table B–2: Table of Class Lives and 

Recovery Periods. No party in this 

proceeding has disputed this allocation 

period. 

Attribution of Subsidies 

The Department’s regulations at 19 

CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that the 

Department will normally attribute a 

subsidy to the products produced by the 

corporation that received the subsidy. 

However, 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(ii) 

through (v) directs that the Department 

will attribute subsidies received by 

certain other companies to the 

combined sales of those companies if 

(1) cross-ownership exists between the 

companies, and (2) the cross-owned 

companies produce the subject 

merchandise, are a holding or parent 

company of the subject company, 

produce an input that is primarily 

dedicated to the production of the 

downstream product, or transfer a 

subsidy to a cross-owned company. 

According to 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists 

between two or more corporations 

where one corporation can use or direct 

the individual assets of the other 

corporation(s) in essentially the same 

ways it can use its own assets. This 

regulation states that this standard will 

normally be met where there is a 

majority voting interest between two 

corporations or through common 

ownership of two (or more) 

corporations. The Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) has upheld the 

Department’s authority to attribute 

subsidies based on whether a company 

could use or direct the subsidy benefits 

of another company in essentially the 

same way it could use its own subsidy 

benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de 

Charleroi, SA v. United States, 166 F. 

Supp. 2d 593, 600–604 (CIT 2001). 

SeAH VINA 

SeAH VINA reported that it is a 

wholly owned subsidiary of SeAH Steel 

Corp. (‘‘SeAH Steel’’), a manufacturer of 

pipe and other steel products based in 

South Korea. SeAH VINA also reported 

that it does not have any subsidiaries, 

nor does it hold ownership claim in any 

other company. 

SeAH VINA’s parent company, SeAH 

Steel, owns 50 percent of the shares of 

Vietnam Steel Pipe Corp. (‘‘Vinapipe’’), 

a Vietnamese producer of circular 

welded pipe. According to SeAH VINA, 

the remaining 50% of Vinapipe is 

owned by Vietnam Steel Corporation, a 

corporation wholly-owned by the GOV. 

In its Deficiency Comments on SeAH 

VINA’s questionnaire response, 

Wheatland Tube argued that crossownership exists between SeAH VINA 

and Vinapipe and, thus, SeAH VINA 

should have provided a questionnaire 

response on behalf of Vinapipe. In our 

supplemental questionnaire to SeAH 

VINA, we asked several questions in 

order to determine whether its 

relationship with Vinapipe met the 

cross-ownership standard under 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(vi). SeAH VINA provided 

the investment certificates and charter 

documents for Vinapipe as well as the 

joint venture agreement between SeAH 

Steel and Vietnam Steel Corporation. 

See SeAH VINA’s SQR at Appendix 

S–1. 

Based upon our examination of these 

documents, as well as other information 

on the record, we do not find evidence 

that Vinapipe is controlled by either 

SeAH Steel or SeAH VINA under 19 

CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi). Specifically, the 

voting structure of Vinapipe requires at 

least a 65% vote on any management or 

operational issues, which would require 

support from both SeAH Steel and 

Vietnam Steel Corporation. In addition, 

each party selects an equal number of 

members of the Board of Directors 

(referred to as the Members’ Council) 

and the nomination of the Chairman 

and General Director rotates between 

SeAH Steel and Vietnam Steel 

Corporation (i.e., if it is one party’s turn 

to select the Chairman, then the other 

Party selects the General Director). 

Furthermore, SeAH VINA reported that 

there were no transactions, business 

agreements, or shared board members 

between it and Vinapipe. See SeAH 

VINA’s SQR at 3–6. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that Vinapipe does not meet the crossownership standard of 19 CFR 

351.525(b)(6)(vi) because the evidence 

does not support a finding that SeAH 

Steel can use or direct the individual 

assets of Vinapipe in essentially the 

same ways it can use its own assets. 

Accordingly, we have not requested a 

questionnaire response from Vinapipe. 

We are attributing subsidy benefits 

received by SeAH VINA solely to the 

sales of SeAH VINA. 

Wheatland Tube has also stated that 

SeAH VINA is affiliated with the Korean 

steel company Pohang Iron & Steel Co. 

Ltd. (‘‘POSCO’’), and that POSCO 

provides SeAH VINA with raw material 

inputs; thus, Wheatland Tube states that 

a questionnaire response is due from 

POSCO. Wheatland Tube states that the 

affiliation between SeAH VINA and 

POSCO is based upon shares held by 

POSCO in SeAH VINA’s Korean parent 

company, SeAH Steel. 

While the Department has found 

SeAH Steel and POSCO to be affiliated 

in certain AD investigations of imports 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19215 

2The Department initiated on this program under 

the title ‘‘Exemption of Import Duties on Import 

Duties on Imports of Fixed Assets, Spare Parts and 

Accessories for Industrial Zones.’’ Because we now 

have a better understanding of why import duty 

exemptions may be granted, we have analyzed 

benefits received by Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH 

VINA under two different programs, even though 

both companies are located in industrial zones. 

This is because the respondents receive benefits 

under separate provisions. Haiphong Hongyuan’s 

benefits have been analyzed as ‘‘Import Duty 

Exemptions for Imports of Fixed Assets, Spare Parts 

and Accessories for Export Processing Enterprises 

or Export Processing Zones.’’ SeAH VINA is 

addressed under ‘‘Import Duty Exemptions for 

Imports of Fixed Assets, Spare Parts and 

Accessories for Encouraged Projects,’’ which 

replaces both ‘‘Duty Exemptions on Goods for the 

Creation of Fixed Assets for Encouraged Projects’’ 

and ‘‘Exemption of Import Duties on Imports of 

Fixed Assets, Spare Parts and Accessories for 

Industrial Zones.’’ 

from Korea, there is nothing on the 

record, nor has Wheatland Tube 

provided any information, to 

demonstrate cross-ownership as defined 

under 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) between 

SeAH VINA and POSCO. Accordingly, 

we preliminarily determine that crossownership does not exist between SeAH 

VINA and POSCO; thus, there is no 

need to solicit a questionnaire response 

from POSCO. Furthermore, Wheatland 

Tube has provided no information that 

POSCO is providing SeAH VINA with 

an input that is produced in Vietnam. 

According to the information submitted 

by Wheatland Tube, POSCO’s steel 

facility in Vietnam is currently being 

constructed and will not be operational 

until 2013. 

Haiphong Hongyuan 

Haiphong Hongyuan informed us that 

it is wholly owned by MAT Holdings, 

Inc., which is located in the United 

States. See Haiphong Hongyuan’s IQR, 

at 2. According to Haiphong Hongyuan, 

it has no affiliates in Vietnam, and it did 

not export any subject merchandise to 

the United States through a trading 

company. Therefore, we are attributing 

subsidy benefits received by Haiphong 

Hongyuan solely to Haiphong 

Hongyuan’s sales. 

Analysis of Programs 

Based upon our analysis of the 

petition and the responses to our 

questionnaires, we preliminarily 

determine the following: 

Programs Preliminarily Determined To 

Be Countervailable 

Import Duty Exemptions for Imported 

Raw Materials for Exported Goods 

Pursuant to Article 3.3 of the Law on 

Import and Export Tax, goods imported 

from foreign countries into non-tariff 

zones for use only in non-tariff zones 

are not liable for import duties. In 

accordance with Decree 29/2008/ND–CP 

issuing regulations on industrial zones, 

export processing zones and economic 

zones, these same rules extend to export 

processing zones and export processing 

enterprises. 

Haiphong Hongyuan reported that it 

qualified for duty exemptions on its 

imported raw materials used to produce 

exported goods based on its designation 

as a qualified export processing 

enterprise. The GOV provided Haiphong 

Hongyuan’s investment certificate, 

which confirmed its designation as an 

export processing enterprise. 

SeAH VINA reported that it paid the 

applicable import tariffs on its raw 

material imports. 

Import duty exemptions on inputs for 

exported products constitute 

countervailable export subsidies to the 

extent that the exemption extends to 

inputs that are not consumed in the 

production of the exported product, 

making normal allowances for waste. 

See 19 CFR 351.519(a)(1)(ii). However, 

the government in question must have 

in place and apply a system to confirm 

which inputs are consumed in the 

production of the exported products, 

and in what amounts. This system must 

be reasonable, effective for the purposes 

intended, and based on generally 

accepted commercial practices in the 

country of export. If such a system does 

not exist, or if it is not applied 

effectively, and the government in 

question does not carry out an 

examination of actual inputs involved to 

confirm which inputs are consumed in 

the production of the exported product, 

the entire amount of any exemption, 

deferral, remission or drawback is 

countervailable. See 19 CFR 

351.519(4)(i)–(ii). In Bags From Vietnam 

Final Determination, the Department 

determined that the GOV does not have 

such a system and companies are, in 

fact, allowed to choose their own yield 

rates within a range established by the 

GOV. Thus, we found the duty 

exemptions on raw materials for exports 

to be fully countervailable. See Bags 

from Vietnam Final Determination, and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10. 

We preliminarily determine that 

Haiphong Hongyuan received a 

countervailable subsidy, as described by 

section 771(5)(A) of the Act, under the 

Import Duty Exemptions for Imported 

Raw Materials for Exported Goods 

program. We preliminarily determine 

this program to be specific under 

section 771(5A)(A) and (B) of the Act 

because benefits under this program are 

contingent upon export performance. In 

addition, we preliminarily determine a 

financial contribution exists pursuant to 

section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, as the 

exempted duties represent revenue 

forgone by the GOV. 

Normally, we treat exemptions from 

indirect taxes and import charges on 

raw materials as recurring benefits, 

consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), 

and allocate the benefits to the year in 

which they were received. Thus, to 

calculate the subsidy rate for Haiphong 

Hongyuan, we first determined the total 

value of duties exempted during the POI 

by multiplying the value of each raw 

material imported during the POI by the 

applicable tariff rate. We then divided 

this by the value of Haiphong 

Hongyuan’s export sales. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine that Haiphong Hongyuan 

received a countervailable subsidy of 

8.04 percent ad valorem. See 

Memorandum from Christopher 

Siepmann, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst to Yasmin Nair, 

Program Manager, ‘‘Preliminary 

Calculation Memorandum for Haiphong 

Hongyuan,’’ dated March 26, 2012 

(‘‘Haiphong Hongyuan Prelim Calc 

Memo’’). 

B. Import Duty Exemptions for Imported 

Fixed Assets, Spare Parts, and 

Accessories for Export Processing 

Enterprises or Export Processing Zones 2

Article 16.6 of the Law on Import Tax 

and Export Tax, dated June 14, 2005, 

provides duty exemptions on imported 

fixed assets, spare parts, and accessories 

for projects entitled to investment 

incentives. Pursuant to Decree No. 108/ 

2006/ND–CP, Detailing and Guiding the 

Implementation of a Number of Articles 

of the Investment Law, projects in 

certain geographical areas, including 

industrial development zones, are 

entitled to receive these investment 

incentives. 

The GOV reported that Haiphong 

Hongyuan’s location in the Do Son Hai 

Phong Industrial Zone made it eligible 

to receive duty exemptions on fixed 

assets. However, Haiphong Hongyuan 

reported that it claimed these import 

duty exemptions pursuant to its 

designation as a qualified export 

processing enterprise. As discussed 

above for raw material imports, Article 

3.3 of the Law on Import and Export 

Tax, permits imports into non-tariff 

zones to be exempt from duties so long 

as they are only in non-tariff zones. For 

this preliminary determination, we are 

relying on Haiphong Hongyuan’s 

explanation of the basis for its 

eligibility. 

We preliminarily determine that, for 

Haiphong Hongyuan, this program is 

specific and constitutes an export 

subsidy pursuant to sections 771(5A)(A) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19216 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

and (B) of the Act, because benefits 

under this program are contingent upon 

export performance. In addition, we 

preliminarily determine a financial 

contribution exists pursuant to section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act because the 

exempted duties represent revenue 

forgone by the GOV. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

benefits provided to Haiphong 

Hongyuan under this program constitute 

a countervailable subsidy within the 

meaning of section 771(5)(A) of the Act. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), 

we generally treat exemptions from 

indirect taxes and import charges, such 

as the tariff exemptions for spare parts 

and accessories, as conferring recurring 

benefits. Thus, we allocate the benefits 

to the year in which they were received. 

However, when an indirect tax or 

import charge exemption is provided 

for, or tied to, the capital structure or 

capital assets of a firm, the Department 

may treat it as a non-recurring benefit 

and allocate the benefit to the firm over 

the AUL. See 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(iii) 

and 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2). 

Haiphong Hongyuan provided a list of 

tariff exemptions that it received for 

imported fixed assets, spare parts, and 

accessories since its establishment in 

2008. See Haiphong Hongyuan’s IQR at 

Exhibit 15. Haiphong Hongyuan’s list of 

tariff exemptions did not identify which 

items were fixed assets and which were 

spare parts and accessories. Therefore, 

the Department relied upon the items’ 

descriptions to classify each item as 

either a fixed asset or spare part/ 

accessory. Consistent with Bags from 

Vietnam Final Determination, we are 

treating duty exemptions on fixed assets 

as non-recurring subsidies and duty 

exemptions on spare parts and 

accessories as recurring subsidies. 

For years prior to the POI, the duty 

exemptions on fixed assets were less 

than 0.5 percent of Haiphong 

Hongyuan’s exports in those years. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.524(b)(2), the benefits were 

expensed in the year of receipt and did 

not give rise to a countervailable 

subsidy in the POI. Regarding its 

imports during the POI, our review 

shows that although Haiphong 

Hongyuan imported spare parts and 

accessories, it paid the applicable duty 

rate on those items. We applied the 

‘‘expense test’’ described above to 

Haiphong Hongyuan’s import 

exemptions for fixed assets and found 

that total exemptions in the POI were 

also less than 0.5 percent and, hence, 

expensed in the POI. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine that Haiphong Hongyuan 

received a countervailable subsidy of 

0.02 percent ad valorem. See Haiphong 

Hongyuan Prelim Calc Memo. 

C. Import Duty Exemptions for Imported 

Fixed Assets, Spare Parts, and 

Accessories for Encouraged Projects 

As explained above, Article 16.6 of 

the Law on Import Tax and Export Tax, 

dated June 14, 2005, provides duty 

exemptions on imported fixed assets, 

spare parts, and accessories for projects 

entitled to investment incentives. 

Pursuant to Decree No. 108/2006/ND– 

CP, Detailing and Guiding the 

Implementation of a Number of Articles 

of the Investment Law, projects in 

certain geographical areas, including 

industrial development zones, are 

‘‘encouraged’’ and, hence, able to 

receive these incentives. 

According to the GOV, SeAH VINA 

received duty exemptions because it is 

located in the Bien Hoa Industrial Zone. 

This program was found 

countervailable in Bags from Vietnam 

Final Determination because the 

companies investigated in that case 

were located in industrial zones. The 

GOV reports that the eligibility criteria 

for this program changed on October 1, 

2010, pursuant to Decree 87/2010/ND– 

CP Detailing the implementation of the 

Law on Import and Export Tax 2005. 

However, Article 16.2 of this decree 

appears to grandfather benefits to 

companies that enjoyed these tax 

exemptions prior to October 1, 2010. 

The Department intends to seek 

additional information following this 

preliminary determination to confirm 

benefits to SeAH VINA extended 

beyond October 1, 2010, for this 

program. 

SeAH VINA stated that, although 

eligible for these exemptions due to its 

location in an industrial development 

zone, it did not use this program. 

Rather, SeAH VINA claims it did not 

pay import duties because the 

Vietnamese customs law permits dutyfree importation of components used to 

construct certain machinery. In this 

case, this ‘‘certain machinery’’ was a 

pipe forming mill and the applicable 

duty rate was zero. 

In response to the Department’s 

request, SeAH VINA provided the 

customs documents associated with 

these imports. These documents 

indicate that SeAH VINA received these 

duty exemptions pursuant to the 

entitlements established by Decree No 

108/2006/ND–CP, Detailing and 

Guiding the Implementation of a 

Number of Articles of the Investment 

Law. Relying on these import 

documents and the GOV’s statements 

concerning SeAH VINA’s eligibility for 

this program, we preliminarily 

determine that SeAH VINA used the 

program being investigated and that the 

applicable duties in the absence of the 

program were not zero. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that the duty exemptions received by 

SeAH VINA on its imports of fixed 

assets, spare parts, and accessories are 

specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of 

the Act, because they are limited to 

companies located in particular 

geographic areas. In addition, we 

preliminarily determine a financial 

contribution exists pursuant to section 

771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, as the exempted 

duties represent revenue forgone by the 

GOV. 

We are relying on the list of yearly 

imported fixed assets, spare parts, and 

accessories reported by SeAH VINA. 

Because SeAH VINA reported that all 

imports under this program were used 

to create fixed assets, we are treating all 

of SeAH VINA’s reported imports as 

either spare parts or accessories. 

Consistent with Bags from Vietnam 

Final Determination, we are treating 

import duty exemptions on spare parts 

and accessories as recurring subsidies. 

Because we do not have complete 

information on the tariff rates applicable 

to SeAH VINA’s imports, we have relied 

upon Haiphong Hongyuan’s reported 

import exemptions to calculate an 

average tariff rate to apply to SeAH 

VINA’s reported imports. Although we 

are investigating Haiphong Hongyuan’s 

tariff exemptions as specific to export 

processing enterprises or export 

processing zones, the tariff rates 

reported by Haiphong Hongyuan for its 

imports would also have been 

applicable to SeAH VINA in the absence 

of this subsidy program. For further 

description of this tariff rate calculation, 

see Memorandum from Austin 

Redington, International Trade Analyst, 

to Yasmin Nair, Program Manager, 

‘‘Preliminary Calculation Memorandum 

for SeAH VINA,’’ dated March 26, 2012 

(‘‘SeAH VINA Prelim Calc Memo’’). We 

will seek additional information on the 

applicable tariff rates for SeAH VINA’s 

imports for our final determination. 

To calculate SeAH VINA’s benefit 

under this program, we first determined 

the total value of duties exempted 

during the POI by multiplying the value 

of each item imported under this 

program by the facts available tariff rate 

described above. We then divided the 

total by SeAH VINA’s total sales for 

2010. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine that SeAH VINA received a 

countervailable subsidy of 0.04 percent 

ad valorem under this program. See 

SeAH VINA Prelim Calc Memo. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19217 

II. Programs Preliminarily Determined 

To Have Been Not Used by Respondents 

or To Not Provide Benefits During the 

POI 

A. Preferential Lending to the Steel 

Industry 

Petitioners claim that according to 

GOV policy, projects in specified 

industries are eligible for preferential 

loans or debt restructuring. They argue 

that this is evidenced by the GOV’s 

designation of steel as a spearhead 

industry. Further, Petitioners claim that 

the GOV exerts control over nominally 

commercial banks to provide debt 

restructuring, loan forgiveness, and 

preferential lending to the Vietnamese 

steel industry, and that these industrial 

policies have resulted in preferential 

loans to manufacturers of circular 

welded pipe products. 

In response to our questionnaire, the 

GOV provided numerous planning 

documents pertaining to the steel 

industry. The GOV submitted 

Resolution 56/2006/QH11 on June, 29, 

2006 on five-year social-economic 

development plan for the period of 

2006–2010 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 7); 

the Resolution 62/2006/NQ–HDND by 

Dong Nai People’s Council on the 

targets, tasks and solution for sociodevelopment and security of the city 

2006–2010 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 32); 

Resolution 08/2006/NQ–HDND by Hai 

Phong People’s Council on the city plan 

for socio-economic development plan 

for 2006–2010 (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 

33); Decision 145/2007/QD–TTg, 

Approving the master plan on 

development of Vietnam Steel period 

2007–2015 with regard to the year 2025, 

dated September 4, 2007 (see GOV IQR 

at Exhibit 12); Decision 134/2001/QD– 

TTg, Approving the overall planning for 

development of steel industry until the 

year 2010, dated September 10, 2001 

(see GOV IQR at Exhibit 13); and 

Decision No. 55/2007/QD–TTg, 

Approving the List of Priority Industries 

and Spearhead Industries for the 2007– 

2010 Period with a Vision to 2020, and 

a Number of Incentive Policies for These 

Industries (see GOV IQR at Exhibit 6). 

Based on our review of these plans, 

circular welded pipe is not listed among 

the steel industry products designated 

for financial support, though other 

specific steel industry products are 

listed. The GOV confirmed that circular 

welded pipe is not the subject of any of 

the projects identified in the planning 

documents. Further, the GOV clarified 

that the designation of a spearhead or 

priority industry is provided under 

Decision 55/2007/QD–TTg, and only 

steel draft and special-use steel are 

designated as priority industries during 

2007–2010. The GOV defined specialuse steel as high-quality steel for use by 

the defense industry, electrical engine 

manufacturing and ship building. It did 

not define ‘‘steel draft,’’ but claims that 

circular welded pipe is neither 

considered steel draft nor special-use 

steel, and circular welded pipe 

manufacturing is not designated as a 

priority industry. 

The Department also asked the GOV 

to explain whether circular welded pipe 

is covered by the development 

objectives of Resolution 08/2006/NQ– 

HDND. The GOV responded by stating 

that Resolution 08/2005/NQ–HDND sets 

forth the goals for development of 

Haiphong City from 2006–2010 and lists 

sectors in which Hai Phong City hopes 

to achieve further development. See 

GOV IQR at 4. The GOV also stated that 

a sector listed in the plan does not 

entitle that sector to any form of 

investment preference. Rather, the 

ability to provide investment 

preferences rests largely with the central 

government; the provincial government 

can only assist industrial sectors in 

terms of administrative policies, which 

must be explicitly provided for in 

decisions issued by the people’s 

committee. Id. The GOV added that 

circular welded pipe production is not 

an encouraged industry in Haiphong 

City because circular welded pipe is a 

low value-added product, and current 

production capacity exceeds market 

demand. Id. 

Based on this information, we 

preliminarily determine that circular 

welded pipe was not part of a state 

targeted, or encouraged, industry or 

project; and that the various plans that 

relate to the promotion of the 

Vietnamese steel industry do not cover 

the production of circular welded pipe. 

Furthermore, the respondent producers 

of circular welded pipe are not hotrolled steel manufacturers, a type of 

steel production that is referenced in the 

GOV steel industry plans. We intend to 

confirm the accuracy of the information 

provided by the GOV for this program 

at verification. 

B. Provision of Land for Less Than 

Adequate Remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’) in 

Encouraged Industries or Industrial 

Zones 

Petitioners claim that the GOV 

provides a land-rent reduction or 

exemption program for encouraged 

industries or enterprises in industrial 

zones. 

As explained above, Haiphong 

Hongyuan is located in Do Son Hai 

Phong Industry Zone. Haiphong 

Hongyuan rents its land directly from 

the industrial development corporation 

(‘‘IDC’’) Hai Phong Do Son Industrial 

Zone Joint Venture Company, which is 

a joint-venture between the Hai Phong 

Construction and Development 

Infrastructure Group and Asia Glorious 

Development Ltd. of Hong Kong, a 100 

percent foreign enterprise. 

According to Article 35.8 of Decree 

29/2008/ND–CP, the provincial People’s 

Committee is responsible for ‘‘carrying 

out the procedures for leasing or 

allocating land in industrial zones {and} 

economic zones in accordance with the 

law on land and relevant laws.’’ Article 

36.1 of the same law states that ‘‘{t}he 

Management Committee is an agency 

under the provincial People’s 

Committee which directly performs the 

function of State administration with 

respect to industrial zones and 

economic zones within the province or 

city under central authority in 

accordance with this Decree and 

relevant laws.’’ See GOV IQR at Exhibit 

41. However, the GOV informed us that 

the IDC, not the management 

committee, is responsible for developing 

the land and contracting with 

enterprises to locate in the zone. 

According to the GOV, the management 

committee, in this case the Hai Phong 

Export Processing Zone and Industrial 

Zone Authority, ‘‘plays no role in the 

negotiations between the infrastructure 

development company and the 

enterprise.’’ See GOV SQR at 14. The 

GOV’s claim is supported by Haiphong 

Hongyuan, which informed us that 

‘‘Haiphong Hongyuan leased the landuse rights from the Haiphong Doson 

{Industrial Joint Venture Company} as 

detailed in the land lease agreement 

included at Exhibit 17–A.’’ Haiphong 

Hongyuan’s lease agreement shows that, 

although the agreement is subject to the 

‘‘management rules and regulations of 

Hai Phong Export Processing Zone and 

Industrial Zone Authority and Hai 

Phong Do Son Industrial Zone,’’ the 

contracting parties are Hai Phong Do 

Son Industrial Joint Venture Company 

and Haiphong Hongyuan. See Haiphong 

Hongyuan IQR at Exhibit 17. Haiphong 

Hongyuan also provided a 

memorandum of understanding 

predating its establishment, between 

Hai Phong Do Son Industrial Joint 

Venture Company and MAT Holdings, 

Inc., which summarizes the result of 

negotiations between the two parties for 

Haiphong Hongyuan’s land. See 

Haiphong Hongyuan IQR at Exhibit 18. 

Thus, we preliminarily determine that 

the price of Haiphong Hongyuan’s land 

and the terms of its lease were 

established through negotiations 

between Haiphong Hongyuan (or its 

parent company) and Hai Phong Do Son 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19218 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 

3See, e.g., Oil Country Tubular Goods From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances Determination, 74 FR 64045 

(December 7, 2009), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at 20. 

4See Law on Investment of the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, National Assembly No. 59/2005/QH11 

at Article 36, and the Government of Vietnam 

Decree No. 108/2006/ND/CP Providing Guidelines 

for Implementation of a Number of Articles of Law 

on Investment at Article 26. 

Industrial Joint Venture Company. 

Additional information on which we are 

basing our determination cannot be 

discussed in this notice because the 

GOV designated it business proprietary. 

See Haiphong Hongyuan Prelim Calc 

Memo. 

The Department has found that when 

an industrial zone is part of a larger 

jurisdiction, and the larger jurisdiction 

is responsible for providing land use 

rights throughout the jurisdiction, the 

provision of such rights within the 

industrial zone is regionally specific 

under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act.3

However, in this instance, the authority 

to negotiate the price and enter into 

land use contracts in the Hai Phong Do 

Son Industrial Zone rests with the 

Haiphong Do Son Industrial Joint 

Venture Company. As such, the 

provision of land use rights within this 

industrial zone is not limited to an 

enterprise or industry located within a 

designated geographical zone. 

Therefore, we are preliminary 

determining that Haiphong Hongyuan 

did not receive a benefit, and did not 

use this program. 

We are not finding this program ‘‘not 

countervailable’’ because the allegation 

involved a national law that authorizes 

exemptions and reductions in land use 

fees in the country’s designated 

industrial zones.4 Because this program 

is authorized under a national law, the 

exemptions and reductions of land use 

fees may vary from industrial zone to 

industrial zone. Thus, our 

determination with respect to the 

provision of land use rights to Haiphong 

Hongyuan is limited to the industrial 

zone in which the company is located. 

Although the record as a whole 

supports the above finding, there are 

some apparent contradictions in the 

GOV’s response. For example, in its first 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

the GOV states that ‘‘the industrial zone 

management authority is limited to the 

specific industrial zone that it 

administers, and has no land use right 

authority beyond the industrial zone.’’ 

However, on the next page, the GOV 

states that ‘‘{t}he regulating authority is 

called the Hai Phong Economic Zone 

Authority. This authority has 

jurisdiction over all of the industrial 

zones within Hai Phong City.’’ See GOV 

SQR at 15–16. The documentation 

provided by the GOV and Haiphong 

Hongyuan indicates that the entity is 

called the ‘‘Hai Phong Export Processing 

Zone and Industrial Zone Authority.’’ 

See, e.g., Haiphong Hongyuan IQR at 

Exhibit 17; see also GOV SQR at Exhibit 

GOVS1–21. We intend to seek 

additional clarification from the GOV 

before issuing our final determination. 

SeAH VINA’s land payments and 

contract are through a provincial 

government. However, the land rent was 

established by a contract that preceded 

the January 11, 2007 cut-off date. Thus, 

consistent with the Bags from Vietnam 

Final Determination, we are 

preliminarily determining that this 

program does not provide benefits to 

SeAH VINA. 

C. Government Provision of Water for 

LTAR in Industrial Zones 

Petitioners claim that occupants of 

industrial zones are offered special rates 

on water. Information in the 

questionnaire responses shows that both 

Haiphong Hongyuan and SeAH VINA 

sourced their water from industrial 

development companies. The GOV 

stated that water wholesalers provided 

the industrial development companies 

with the water. Moreover, both 

companies paid the applicable tariff 

rates for their water and there was no 

separate rate for companies located 

within the industrial zones. 

On this basis, we preliminarily 

determine that the GOV’s provision of 

water is not specific to the industrial 

zones in which the respondents are 

located. Thus, we preliminarily 

determine that this program is not used. 

D. Land Rent Reduction or Exemption for 

Exporters 

E. Land Rent Reduction or Exemption for 

FIEs 

F. Export Promotion Program 

G. New Product Development Program 

H. Income Tax Preferences for Encouraged 

Industries 

I. Income Tax Preferences for Enterprises in 

Industrial Zones 

J. Tax Refund for Reinvestment by FIEs 

K. Income Tax Preferences for FIEs 

L. Income Tax Preferences for Exporters 

M. Preferential Lending for Exporters 

N. Import Duty Preferences for FIEs 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of 

the Act, we will verify the information 

submitted by the respondents prior to 

making our final determination. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have 

calculated individual rates for 

respondents individually investigated, 

SeAH VINA and Haiphong Hongyuan. 

We have also calculated an all-others 

rate. Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of 

the Act state that for companies not 

investigated, we will determine an allothers rate by weight-averaging the 

individual subsidy rates by each 

company’s exports of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. 

However, the all-others rate may not 

include zero and de minimis rates or 

any rates based solely on the facts 

available. As SeAH VINA’s preliminary 

calculated subsidy rate is de minimis, 

Haiphong Hongyuan’s calculated rate is 

being used as the All Others rate. 

We preliminarily determine the total 

estimated net countervailable subsidy 

rates to be: 

Exporter/Manufacturer 

Net subsidy 

rate 

(%) 

SeAH Steel VINA Corp .......... 0.04 

Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan 

Machinery Manufactory Co., 

Ltd ....................................... 8.06 

All Others ................................ 8.06 

In accordance with sections 

703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are 

directing CBP to suspend liquidation of 

all entries of circular welded pipe from 

Vietnam that are entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of the publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register, and to 

require a cash deposit or bond for such 

entries of merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. However, we are not 

directing CBP to suspend liquidation of 

entries produced by SeAH VINA, 

because its rate is de minimis. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 703(f) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all nonprivileged and non-proprietary 

information relating to this 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. 

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) 

of the Act, if our final determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will make its final 

determination within 45 days after the 

Department makes its final 

determination. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices 19219 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), we will disclose to the 

parties the calculations for this 

preliminary determination within five 

days of its announcement. Due to the 

anticipated timing of verification and 

issuance of verification reports, case 

briefs for this investigation must be 

submitted no later than one week after 

the issuance of the last verification 

report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for a 

further discussion of case briefs). 

Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five 

days after the deadline for submission of 

case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied 

upon, a table of contents, and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. Executive summaries 

should be limited to five pages total, 

including footnotes. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Section 774 of the Act provides that 

the Department will hold a public 

hearing to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs, 

provided that such a hearing is 

requested by an interested party. If a 

request for a hearing is made in this 

investigation, the hearing will be held 

two days after the deadline for 

submission of the rebuttal briefs, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20230. Parties should 

confirm by telephone the time, date, and 

place of the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must electronically submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

using IA ACCESS, within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain: (1) The party’s name, address, 

and telephone; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of the issues 

to be discussed. Oral presentations will 

be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 

Id. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7748 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–520–806] 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: 

Preliminary Negative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination With Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

preliminarily determines that 

countervailable subsidies are not being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

circular welded carbon-quality steel 

pipe (‘‘circular welded pipe’’) from the 

United Arab Emirates (‘‘UAE’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 30, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Morris or Dustin Ross, 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) 482–1779 and (202) 

482–0747, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the Department 

of Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) 

notice of initiation in the Federal 

Register. See Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 72173 

(November 22, 2011) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’), and the accompanying 

Initiation Checklist. 

On November 22, 2011, the 

Department released the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data on 

imports of subject merchandise during 

the period of investigation (‘‘POI’’), 

under administrative protective order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all parties with APO access. 

See Memorandum to the File from 

Joshua Morris, ‘‘Release of Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Data,’’ dated 

November 22, 2011. On November 30, 

2011, we received comments on the data 

from Wheatland Tube, one of the 

petitioners in this investigation. On 

December 16, 2011, the Department 

selected two Emirati producers/ 

exporters of circular welded pipe as 

mandatory company respondents: (1) 

Abu Dhabi Metal Pipes & Profiles 

Industries Complex LLC (‘‘ADPICO’’); 

and (2) Universal Tube and Plastic 

Industries, Ltd. (‘‘Universal Plastic’’). 

See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, 

‘‘Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ 

dated December 16, 2011. This 

memorandum is on file electronically in 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’), with access to IA ACCESS 

available in the Department’s Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the 

main Department building. 

Also on December 16, 2011, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

published its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

of circular welded pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the UAE, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from India, Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and Vietnam, 76 FR 78313 

(December 16, 2011). 

On December 19, 2011, the 

Department postponed the deadline for 

the preliminary determination in this 

investigation until March 26, 2012. See 

Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 

Pipe from India, the Sultanate of Oman, 

the United Arab Emirates, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigations, 76 FR 78615 

(December 19, 2011). In conjunction 

with this postponement, the Department 

also postponed the deadline for the 

submission of new subsidy allegations 

until February 15, 2012. See 

Memorandum to the File from Joshua S. 

Morris, ‘‘New Subsidy Allegation 

Deadline: Circular Welded CarbonQuality Steel Pipe from India, the 

Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab 

Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam,’’ dated, December 15, 2011. 

On December 21, 2011, the 

Department issued countervailing duty 

(‘‘CVD’’) questionnaires to the 

Government of the UAE (‘‘GUAE’’), 

ADPICO, and Universal Plastic. The 

Department received responses from 

Universal Plastic (‘‘UQR’’) on February 

16, 2012, and both the GUAE (‘‘GQR’’) 

and ADPICO (‘‘AQR’’) on February 17, 

2012. The Department received 

responses to supplemental 

questionnaires from ADPICO on March 

14, 2012, and from Universal Plastic, 

and the GUAE (‘‘GSR’’) on March 16, 

2012. 

Wheatland Tube requested two 

extensions of the deadline for filing new 

subsidy allegations. As a result, this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES