27308 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

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

calculate exporter/importer (or 

customer) -specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has reported 

reliable entered values, we calculated 

importer (or customer) -specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 

customer) -specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importers’/customers’ entries 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 

(or customer) -specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer) 

-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Jiheng, 

the cash deposit rate will be the 

company-specific rate established in the 

final results of review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, a zero cash 

deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 285.63 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporter(s) that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results are issued 

and published in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11605 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–914] 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and 

Tube From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of the 

2008–2009 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a timely 

request from one importer, FitMAX Inc. 

(‘‘FitMAX’’), the Department of 

Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) is 

conducting the 2008–2009 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on light-walled 

rectangular pipe and tube (‘‘LWR’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

We have preliminarily determined that 

sales have been made below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) by the exporter 

participating in the instant 

administrative review. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) for which 

the importer-specific assessment rate is 

above de minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 14, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Blackledge or Howard Smith, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3518 and (202) 

482–5193, respectively. 

Background 

On June 24, 2008, the Department 

published its final determination of 

sales at less-than-fair-value in the 

antidumping duty investigation of LWR 

from the PRC. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652 

(June 24, 2008). On August 5, 2008, the 

Department published its antidumping 

duty order on LWR from the PRC. See 

Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube 

from Mexico, the People’s Republic of 

China, and the Republic of Korea: 

Antidumping Duty Orders; Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

Republic of Korea: Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45403 (August 

5, 2008). On August 3, 2009, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the above-referenced order. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 38397 

(August 3, 2009). Based on a timely 

request from FitMAX for an 

administrative review, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on LWR from 

the PRC with respect to the Sun Group 

Inc. (the ‘‘Sun Group’’), a producer/ 

exporter of subject merchandise 

imported by FitMAX. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Request for 

Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224 

(September 22, 2009) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

On September 25, 2009, the 

Department issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to the Sun Group. The 

Sun Group submitted responses to the 

Department’s questionnaire from 

October through December 2009. We 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27309 

1Petitioners are Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube 

Company and Searing Industries, Inc. 

2Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ‘‘[w]hile continuing 

the practice of assigning separate rates only to 

exporters, all separate rates that the Department 

will now assign in its NME investigations will be 

specific to those producers that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 

however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter 

and all of the producers which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period of investigation. 

This practice applied both to mandatory 

respondents receiving an individually calculated 

separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 

firms receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘combination rates’ 

because such rates apply to specific combinations 

of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only 

to merchandise both exported by the firm in 

question and produced by a firm that supplied the 

exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See 

Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis in original). 

issued supplemental questionnaires to, 

and received responses from, the Sun 

Group from November 2009 through 

April 2010. Petitioners 1 submitted 

comments to the Department regarding 

the questionnaire and supplemental 

questionnaire responses of the Sun 

Group in November 2009. 

On January 13, 2010, the Department 

provided parties with an opportunity to 

submit publicly available information 

on surrogate countries and values for 

consideration in these preliminary 

results. On January 26, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted comments on surrogate 

country selection, and on March 22, 

2010, and April 5, 2010, Petitioners 

submitted comments on surrogate 

values. The Sun Group submitted 

comments on surrogate values on March 

19, 2010, and April 12, 2010. 

Period of Review 

The POR is January 20, 2008, through 

July 31, 2009. 

Scope of Order 

The merchandise that is the subject of 

the order is certain welded carbonquality light-walled steel pipe and tube, 

of rectangular (including square) cross 

section, having a wall thickness of less 

than 4 mm. 

The term carbon-quality steel 

includes both carbon steel and alloy 

steel which contains only small 

amounts of alloying elements. 

Specifically, the term carbon-quality 

includes products in which none of the 

elements listed below exceeds the 

quantity by weight respectively 

indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 

2.25 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent 

of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, 

or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 

percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 

lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 

percent of tungsten, or 0.10 percent of 

molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of 

niobium, or 0.15 percent vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. The 

description of carbon-quality is 

intended to identify carbon-quality 

products within the scope. The welded 

carbon-quality rectangular pipe and 

tube subject to the order is currently 

classified under the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings 7306.61.50.00 

and 7306.61.70.60. While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

Non-Market-Economy (‘‘NME’’) 

Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be an NME country. In accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See also Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Coated Free Sheet Paper from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 

30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 

Paper from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). 

The Department has not revoked the 

PRC’s status as an NME country. None 

of the parties to this proceeding has 

contested such treatment. Therefore, in 

these preliminary results of review, we 

have treated the PRC as an NME country 

and applied our current NME 

methodology in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act. 

Separate Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate-rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 48224. The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate-rate 

status application. See Policy Bulletin 

05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 

Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 

5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.2

However, the standard for eligibility for 

a separate rate (which is whether a firm 

can demonstrate an absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over its export activities) has not 

changed. 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to investigation in an NME 

country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test set out in the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

further developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

A. Separate Rate Applicant 

1. Wholly Chinese-Owned 

The Sun Group stated that it is a 

wholly Chinese-owned company. 

Therefore, the Department must analyze 

whether this respondent can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by the Sun 

Group supports a preliminary finding of 

de jure absence of governmental control 

based on the following: (1) There is an 

absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) there are 

applicable legislative enactments 

decentralizing control of the company; 

and (3) there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

the company. See the Sun Group’s 

Section A Response, dated October 27, 

2009 (‘‘SAR’’), at 2–8. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
27310 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

We determine that the evidence on 

the record supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

governmental control with respect to the 

Sun Group based on record statements 

and supporting documentation showing 

that the company: (1) Sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; (3) has autonomy 

from the government regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) retains 

the proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See SAR at 8–10. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this administrative review by the Sun 

Group demonstrates an absence of de 

jure and de facto government control 

with respect to the exporters’ exports of 

the merchandise under review, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

Therefore, we have preliminarily 

granted the Sun Group separate rate 

status. 

Selection of a Surrogate Country 

In antidumping proceedings involving 

NME countries, the Department, 

pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, 

will generally base NV on the value of 

the NME producer’s factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’). In accordance with 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 

the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, 

to the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market-economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. 

In the instant review, the Department 

has determined that India, the 

Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, 

Ukraine, and Peru are countries that are 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC. See 

Letter to All Interested Parties, from 

Howard Smith, Re: 2008–2009 

Administrative Review of Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC), dated 

January 13, 2010. Based on evidence 

placed on the record, we have 

determined that it is appropriate to use 

India as a surrogate country pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on the 

following: (1) It is at a level of economic 

development comparable to the PRC 

pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; 

(2) it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise; and (3) we 

have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the FOPs. See 

Petitioners’ January 26, 2010, surrogate 

country comments; see also the Sun 

Group’s March 19, 2010, and 

Petitioners’ March 22, 2010, and April 

5, 2010, surrogate value comments. 

Thus, to calculate NV, we are using 

Indian prices, when available and 

appropriate, to value the FOPs of the 

Sun Group, the mandatory respondent. 

We have obtained and relied upon 

publicly available information wherever 

possible. See ‘‘Memorandum To The 

File, from Melissa Blackledge, Re: 

Administrative Review of Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values,’’ dated May 10, 2010 (‘‘Surrogate 

Values Memo’’). 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether the Sun 

Group’s sales of subject merchandise to 

the United States were made at prices 

below NV, we compared the constructed 

export price (‘‘CEP’’) of the sales to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘United States Price’’ 

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this 

notice. 

United States Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we based the U.S. price for the 

Sun Group’s sale on CEP because this 

sale was made by its U.S. affiliate, 

which purchased subject merchandise, 

produced and sold by the Sun Group 

through one affiliate, FitMAX. In 

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

the Act, we calculated CEP by 

deducting, where applicable, the 

following expenses from the gross unit 

price charged to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States: Foreign 

inland freight, foreign brokerage and 

handling, international freight, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, and U.S. inland 

freight. Further, in accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.402(b), where appropriate, we 

deducted from the starting price the 

following selling expenses associated 

with economic activities occurring in 

the United States: Indirect selling 

expenses, credit, and inventory carrying 

costs. Because the Sun Group and 

FitMAX did not incur short-term U.S. 

dollar borrowings during the POR, we 

based their interest rate on the Federal 

Funds Interest Rate for the calculation 

of their U.S. credit expenses and 

inventory carrying costs incurred in the 

United States. As explained in Policy 

Bulletin 98.2, Imputed Credit Expenses 

and Interest Rates, February 23, 1998, 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov, if a 

respondent had no short-term debt in 

U.S. dollars during the POR, it is the 

Department’s practice to ‘‘use the 

Federal Reserve’s weighted-average data 

for commercial and industrial loans 

maturing between one month and one 

year from the time the loan is made’’ in 

order to calculate the U.S. short-term 

interest percentage rate. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, 71 FR 

7016 (February 10, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. In 

addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) 

of the Act, we made an adjustment to 

the starting price for CEP profit. We 

based movement expenses on either 

surrogate values where the service was 

purchased from a PRC provider, and 

actual expenses where service was 

purchased from a market-economy 

provider in a market-economy currency. 

For details regarding our CEP 

calculations, and for a complete 

discussion of the calculation of the U.S. 

price for the Sun Group, see 

‘‘Memorandum To The File, From 

Melissa Blackledge, Light-Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the 

People’s Republic of China— 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for 

the Sun Group Co., Ltd.,’’ dated May 10, 

2010, at 5 (‘‘Analysis Memo’’). 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 27311 

3We based the values of the FOPs on surrogate 

values (see ‘‘Selected Surrogate Values’’ section 

below). 

country and the available information 

does not permit the calculation of NV 

using home-market prices, third-country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. When 

determining NV in an NME context, the 

Department uses an FOP methodology 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies. See 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 

39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005), unchanged 

in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2003–2004 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 71 FR 2517, 2521 (January 17, 

2006). Thus, we calculated NV by 

adding together the value of the FOPs, 

general expenses, profit, and packing 

costs.3 Specifically, we valued material, 

labor, energy, and packing by 

multiplying the amount of the factor 

consumed in producing subject 

merchandise by the average unit 

surrogate value of the factor. In 

addition, we added freight costs to the 

surrogate costs that we calculated for 

material inputs. We calculated freight 

costs by multiplying surrogate freight 

rates by the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory that produced the subject 

merchandise or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory that 

produced the subject merchandise, as 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated 

costs of the FOPs for surrogate general 

expenses and profit. See Analysis Memo 

at 4. 

Selected Surrogate Values 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by the respondent for the 

POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied 

the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

surrogate values (except as discussed 

below). 

In selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. We added to each 

Indian import surrogate value, a 

surrogate freight cost calculated from 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory, where appropriate. See 

Sigma Corp. 

For these preliminary results, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics in order to calculate 

surrogate values for most of the 

respondent’s material inputs. In 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOPs in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 

Department’s practice is to select, to the 

extent practicable, surrogate values 

which are non-export average values, 

most contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of 2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 27090 

(June 8, 2009), unchanged in Pure 

Magnesium from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

66089 (December 14, 2009). The record 

shows that the Indian import statistics 

represent import data that are 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. 

In calculating surrogate values from 

import statistics, in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, we disregarded 

statistics for imports from NME 

countries and countries deemed to 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may 

benefit all exporters to all export 

markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand). See Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 

13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam: Final Results of the First 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 

(March 21, 2006); and China Nat’l 

Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. 

United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1336 (Ct. Int’l. Trade 2003), aff’d 104 

Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Additionally, we excluded from our 

calculations imports that were labeled 

as originating from an unspecified 

country because we could not determine 

whether they were from an NME 

country. 

We used the following surrogate 

values in our preliminary results of 

review (see Surrogate Values Memo for 

details). We valued raw and packing 

materials using February 2008 through 

July 2009 weighted-average Indian 

import values derived from the World 

Trade Atlas online (‘‘WTA’’). See http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Indian 

import statistics that we obtained from 

the WTA were published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India, and are 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Surrogate Values Memo at 1. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication entitled ‘‘Electricity 

Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of 

Electricity Supply in India’’, dated 

March 2008. These electricity rates 

represent actual country-wide, publicly 

available information on tax-exclusive 

electricity rates charged to industries in 

India. As the rates listed in this source 

became effective on a variety of different 

dates, we are not adjusting the average 

value for inflation. See Surrogate Values 

Memo at 3. 

We valued water using the industrial 

water rates from the Maharashtra 

Province of India (‘‘MPI’’) for April, May, 

and June 2009. See http:// 

www.midcindia.org/MIDCWebSite/ 

WaterSupply. We averaged 378 

industrial water rates within the MPI; 

189 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ 

usage category; and 189 for the ‘‘outside 

industrial areas’’ usage category to 

obtain a single water rate. These 

averages exclude industrial areas where 

either no data were reported or a ‘‘0’’ was 

reported. See Surrogate Values Memo at 

4. 

We valued truck freight using a perunit average rate calculated from data 

on the following Web site: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this website contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. See Surrogate Values Memo at 5. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a price list of export procedures 

necessary to export a standardized cargo 

of goods in India. The price list is 

compiled based on a survey case study 

of the procedural requirements for 

trading a standard shipment of goods by 

ocean transport in India that is 

published in Doing Business 2010: 

India, published by the World Bank. See 

Surrogate Values Memo at 5. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
27312 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Notices 

We valued international freight 

expenses using freight quotes from 

Maersk Sealand, a market-economy 

shipper. Specifically, we calculated a 

simple average of quotes for shipments 

from the PRC to the United States 

occurring during the POR. See Surrogate 

Values Memo at 5. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we valued labor using the 

PRC regression-based wage rate as 

reported on Import Administration’s 

home page, Import Library, Expected 

Wages of Selected NME Countries, 

revised in December 2009, available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

Since this regression-based wage rate 

does not separate the labor rates into 

different skill levels or types of labor, 

we have applied the same wage rate to 

all skill levels and types of labor 

reported by the Sun Group. See 

Surrogate Values Memo at 3. 

Lastly, we valued selling, general and 

administrative expenses, factory 

overhead costs, and profit using the 

contemporaneous 2007–2008 financial 

statements of Zenith Birla (India) 

Limited, an Indian producer of 

merchandise that is identical to subject 

merchandise. See Surrogate Values 

Memo at 6. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information 

with which to value FOPs in the final 

results of review within 20 days after 

the date of publication of the 

preliminary results of review. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

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

Reserve Bank. These exchange rates can 

be accessed at the Web site of Import 

Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist for the 

following respondents during the period 

January 20, 2008, through July 31, 2009: 

LIGHT-WALLED RECTANGULAR PIPE

AND TUBE FROM THE PRC 

Company 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

The Sun Group Inc ............... 219.50 

PRC-wide rate Margin 

(percent) 

PRC-Wide Rate .................... 264.64 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to these 

proceedings within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted not later than 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

a list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Interested parties who wish 

to request a hearing or to participate if 

one is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

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

and telephone number; (2) the number 

of participants; and (3) a list of issues to 

be discussed. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of these reviews, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions for the company subject to 

this review directly to CBP 15 days after 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews. For assessment purposes for 

the Sun Group, the Department 

calculated an importer-specific 

assessment rate for LWR from the PRC 

on a per-unit basis. Specifically, the 

Department divided the total dumping 

margins (calculated as the difference 

between normal value and export price) 

for the importer by the total quantity of 

subject merchandise sold to that 

importer during the POR to calculate a 

per-unit assessment amount. The 

Department will direct CBP to assess an 

importer-specific assessment rate based 

on the resulting per-unit (i.e., perkilogram) rate by the weight in 

kilograms of the entry of the subject 

merchandise during the POR. However, 

the final results of this review shall be 

the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date: (1) For the 

exporter listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be that established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit 

will be required); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter-specific rate 

published for the most recently 

completed review; (3) for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11603 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES