[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21159-21161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11634]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-549-502]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
Thailand.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, 
Sawhill Tubular Division of Armco, Inc., American Tube Company, Inc., 
Laclede Steel Company, Sharon Tube Company, Wheatland Tube Company, and 
Eagle Pipe Company, petitioners, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Thailand. 
This review covers the following manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States: Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd., 
SAF Steel Pipe Export Company, and Pacific Pipe Company. The period of 
review (POR) is March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995.
    We have preliminarily determined that respondents sold subject 
merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the differences 
between the export price and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Rice or Jean Kemp, Office of 
Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1374 or (202) 482-4037, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the 
effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the 
Act) by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations 
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 7, 1995, the Department published a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order 
covering the period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995 (60 FR 
12540).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1) (1995), petitioners 
requested that we conduct a review of Saha Thai and Pacific Pipe Co. In 
addition, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. and SAF Corporation 
requested an administrative review of its sales. We published a notice 
of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on April 
14, 1995 (60 FR 19017). On November 7, 1995, the Department published 
in the Federal Register its notice extending the deadline in this 
review (60 FR 56142).

Scope of the Review

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

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified 
information provided by Saha Thai and SAF, respondents, by using 
standard verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public versions of the verification reports.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the 
Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the home market during 
the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product

[[Page 21160]]

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the 
characteristics listed in the Department's June 21, 1995 antidumping 
questionnaire and additional specifications listed in our January 11, 
1996 supplemental questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by the respondents and verified by the Department.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of pipe and tube by respondents to the 
United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to 
the normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and 
compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price

    We used EP, in accordance with subsections 772 (a) and (c) of the 
Act, because the subject merchandise was sold through an affiliated 
export company (SAF), to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted based 
on the facts of record. Respondents claimed that most U.S. sales should 
be considered constructed export price (CEP) because they were first 
sold in the U.S. to affiliated distributors. However, although the 
Department has preliminarily determined that Saha Thai and SAT are 
affiliated, we disagree that Saha Thai/SAT is affiliated with the U.S. 
distributors. For further information on this decision, please see the 
memorandum from Edward C. Yang to Roland L. MacDonald dated April 29, 
1996.
    We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling, and international freight. We added duty drawback to the 
starting price.

Normal Value

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the combined volume of Saha Thai and SAT home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the combined volume of their U.S. sales 
of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 
the Act. Since respondents' aggregate volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market 
sales.
    We based NV on sales to unaffiliated customers in the home market. 
Where appropriate, we deducted discounts, inland freight, and home 
market packing. We added U.S. packing in accordance with section 
773(a)(6).
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
In accordance with the Department's practice, where the difference in 
merchandise adjustment for any product comparison exceeded 20 percent, 
we based normal value on CV.

Price to CV Comparisons

    Where we compared CV to EP, we deducted from CV the weighted-
average home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-
average U.S. product-specific indirect selling expenses.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on the fact that the Department had disregarded sales in the 
previous review because they were made below the cost of production 
(COP), the Department found reasonable grounds in this review, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, to believe or 
suspect that respondents made sales in the home market at prices below 
the cost of producing the merchandise. As a result, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether the respondents made 
home market sales during the POR at prices below their COP within the 
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
    Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP 
analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    We calculated the COP based on the sum of respondents' cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) 
and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We 
verified the respondents' reported COP values.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

    We used the respondents' weighted-average COP for the POR. We 
compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the 
foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in 
order to determine whether these sales had been made at below-cost 
prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and 
whether they were at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the 
COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
rebates, and direct selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of 
respondents' sales of a given product were sold at prices less than the 
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because 
we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were sold at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined that the below-
cost sales were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial 
quantities'' in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 
Act, and because we determined that the below-cost sales of the product 
were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time where an individual sale price was below the 
weighted-average COP of the product, as defined in section 773(b)(2)(D) 
of the Act. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below 
the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and calculated NV 
based on CV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of respondents' cost of materials, fabrication, 
selling, general, and administrative expenses, U.S. packing costs, 
interest expenses and home market profit as reported in the sales 
databases. In accordance with sections 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and 
profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. 
For four models sold in the United States, we were unable to access 
values

[[Page 21161]]

for home market indirect selling expenses and profit in the data base. 
For these missing values, we assigned values of the average of home 
market selling expenses and profit reported for other home market 
products. Otherwise, we relied on the respondents' reported CV amounts, 
as verified by the Department. For selling expenses, we used the 
weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, in accordance with section 
773(A)(a), we made currency conversions based on the official exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) directs the 
Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign 
currencies into U.S. dollars.

Non-Shipper

    Pacific Pipe stated that it did not have shipments during the POR, 
and we confirmed this with the United States Customs Service. 
Therefore, we are treating Pacific Pipe as a non-shipper for this 
review.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP and NV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer/Exporter                 Period          Margin  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai...............................     3/1/94- 2/28/95      1.07% 
Pacific Pipe Co.........................      3/1/94-2/28/95       (1)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) No sales during review period.                                      

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the 
first business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or other written 
comments from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 
days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be 
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentage 
stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon the 
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for 
all shipments of welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand 
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) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be that 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, 
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent 
period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit 
rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.67 
percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of review are published pursuant to 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: April 29, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-11634 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P