51788 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–930] 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 5, 2008. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that circular welded 

austenitic stainless pressure pipe 

(CWASPP) from the People’s Republic 

of China (PRC) is being, or is likely to 

be, sold in the United States at less than 

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 

733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

dumping margins are shown in the 

‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of 

this notice. 

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 or 482–5193, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 30, 2008, the Department 

received a petition concerning imports 

of CWASPP from the PRC filed in 

proper form by Bristol Metals, L.P., 

Felker Brothers Corp., Marcegaglia USA, 

Inc., Outokumpu Stainless Pipe Inc., 

and the United Steel Workers of 

America (collectively, petitioners). The 

Department initiated an antidumping 

duty investigation of CWASPP from the 

PRC on February 19, 2008. See Circular 

Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 73 FR 10221 (February 26, 

2008) (Initiation Notice). 

On February 20, 2008, the Department 

requested quantity and value (Q&V) 

information from the 11 companies that 

are identified in the petition as potential 

producers or exporters of CWASPP from 

the PRC. See Exhibit I–6, Volume I, of 

the January 30, 2008, Petition for the 

Imposition of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duties (the petition). The 

Department received timely responses 

to its Q&V questionnaire from the 

following companies: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–

Tech Metals Co., Ltd. (Jiuli), Winner 

Stainless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and 

Winner Machinery Enterprise Co., Ltd 

(collectively Winner). The other nine 

companies to which the Department 

sent Q&V questionnaires received the 

questionnaires but did not respond to 

them. 

On March 14, 2008, the International 

Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily 

determined that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury by 

reason of imports of CWASPP from the 

PRC. See Welded Stainless Steel 

Pressure Pipe From China, Investigation 

Nos. 701–TA–454 and 731–TA–1144 

(Preliminary), 73 FR 16911 (March 31, 

2008). Also, in March 2008, petitioners 

and Winner submitted comments to the 

Department regarding the physical 

characteristics of subject merchandise 

that should be used in comparing sales 

prices with normal value. 

On April 28, 2008, the Department 

received separate–rate applications from 

Jiuli and Winner. On April 15, 2008, the 

Department selected Winner as a 

mandatory respondent and issued an 

antidumping questionnaire to the 

company. See memorandum regarding 

‘‘Selection of Respondents in the 

Antidumping Investigation of Circular 

Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure 

Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated April 15, 2008 

(Respondent Selection Memorandum). 

Winner submitted timely responses to 

the Department’s questionnaire on May 

13, 2008, and June 3, 2008. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to, and received 

responses from Winner and Jiuli from 

April through August 2008. Petitioners 

submitted comments to the Department 

regarding Winner’s questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses 

from June through July 2008. 

On June 2, 2008, the Department 

released a memorandum to interested 

parties which listed potential surrogate 

countries and invited interested parties 

to comment on surrogate country and 

surrogate value selection. During June 

and July 2008, petitioners and Winner 

submitted comments on the appropriate 

surrogate country and surrogate values. 

The submitted surrogate value data are 

from India, Thailand, the United States, 

and international websites. 

On June 10, 2008, petitioners 

requested postponement of the 

preliminary determination. On June 24, 

2008, the Department extended this 

preliminary determination by fifty days. 

See Notice of Postponement of 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 35658 (June 

24, 2008). 

On August 15, 2008, Winner 

requested that the Department extend 

the final determination in this case. On 

August 20, 2008, Winner clarified and 

supplemented its extension request by 

identifying the length of the requested 

extension and by including a request to 

extend the provisional measures to six 

months. See the ‘‘Postponement of Final 

Determination and Extension of 

Provisional Measures’’ section of this 

notice below. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

July 1, 2007, through December 31, 

2007. This period comprises the two 

most recently completed fiscal quarters 

as of the month preceding the month in 

which the petition was filed (i.e., 

January 2008). See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is circular welded 

austenitic stainless pressure pipe not 

greater than 14 inches in outside 

diameter. This merchandise includes, 

but is not limited to, the American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(‘‘ASTM’’) A–312 or ASTM A–778 

specifications, or comparable domestic 

or foreign specifications. ASTM A–358 

products are only included when they 

are produced to meet ASTM A–312 or 

ASTM A–778 specifications, or 

comparable domestic or foreign 

specifications. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

welded stainless mechanical tubing, 

meeting ASTM A–554 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; (2) 

boiler, heat exchanger, superheater, 

refining furnace, feedwater heater, and 

condenser tubing, meeting ASTM A–

249, ASTM A–688 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications; and 

(3) specialized tubing, meeting ASTM 

A–269, ASTM A–270 or comparable 

domestic or foreign specifications. 

The subject imports are normally 

classified in subheadings 7306.40.5005; 

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062, 

7306.40.5064, and 7306.40.5085 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). They may 

also enter under HTSUS subheadings 

7306.40.1010; 7306.40.1015; 

7306.40.5042, 7306.40.5044, 

7306.40.5080, and 7306.40.5090. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 51789 

only, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

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. The 

Department received comments 

concerning the scope of the CWASPP 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations from Prudential Stainless 

& Alloy LP (Prudential), a U.S. importer 

and distributor of subject merchandise, 

on March 10, 2008, and rebuttal 

comments from petitioners on March 

14, 2008. In addition, Prudential 

responded to petitioners rebuttal 

comments on April 28, 2008. Prudential 

requests that the Department limit the 

scope of the investigations by excluding 

from the scope all grades of ASTM A–

312, except the 304 and 316 series, and 

all Schedules (wall thickness) of 

stainless pressure pipe except 

Schedules 40S and 10S. Prudential 

contends that the grades of pipe that 

they seek to exclude from the scope are 

premium–priced, low–volume, specialty 

grades that do not compete with high–

volume commodity products in the 304 

and 316 series. Moreover, Prudential 

contends that the Schedules that they 

seek to exclude from the scope 

constitute a minority of what is 

produced by the domestic industry and 

thus these Schedules do not represent a 

threat to petitioners. Petitioners urge the 

Department not to modify the scope, 

noting that (1) the current scope is an 

accurate reflection of the products for 

which the domestic industry is seeking 

relief, (2) the proposed change to the 

scope would exclude products that are 

both manufactured by, and important to, 

the domestic industry and (3) the 

products that Prudential seeks to 

exclude were defined by the ITC as 

like–products in its preliminary 

investigation questionnaire. In rebuttal, 

Prudential adds that although some of 

the domestic industry does produce the 

products that it requests to be excluded 

from the scope (‘‘the products at issue’’), 

these products are not important to the 

domestic industry. Prudential asks the 

Department to determine whether or not 

the products at issue are important to 

the domestic industry by calculating the 

percentage of U.S. production of the 

merchandise under investigation 

represented by the products at issue. 

After considering parties’ comments, 

the Department has decided not to 

modify the scope of the investigations. 

The starting point for determining 

whether merchandise is subject to an 

investigation is the petition. See 19 CFR 

351.225(k)(1) (2001). See also Eckstrom 

Industries, Inc. v. United States, 254 

F.3d 1068, 1071–72 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(citing Smith Corona Corp. v. United 

States, 915 F.2d 683, 685 (Fed. Cir. 

1990)). While the Department does have 

the authority to define or clarify the 

scope of an investigation, the 

Department ‘‘must exercise this 

authority in a manner which reflects the 

intent of the petition and the 

Department generally should not use its 

authority to define the scope of an 

investigation in a manner that would 

thwart the statutory mandate to provide 

the relief requested in the petition.’’ See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products From 

Canada, 67 FR 15539 (April 2, 2002) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum under Scope Issues (after 

Comment 49). Thus, ‘‘absent an 

overarching reason to modify the scope 

in the petition, the Department accepts 

it.’’ See id. The description of subject 

merchandise in the petition indicates 

that the products at issue are to be 

covered by the antidumping and 

countervailing investigations of 

CWASPP from the PRC. Additionally, in 

their comments, petitioners have 

confirmed that the scope, as currently 

written, is an accurate reflection of the 

products for which they seek relief. 

Therefore, the scope modifications 

proposed by Prudential are inconsistent 

with the intent of the petition and 

‘‘would thwart the statutory mandate to 

provide the relief requested in the 

petition.’’ See id. Furthermore, 

Prudential’s claims that the products at 

issue are ‘‘small–volume’’ products that 

are unimportant to the domestic 

industry do not provide a basis for 

modifying the scope. For the above 

reasons, the Department has not 

modified the scope. 

Non–Market Economy Treatment 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non–market economy (NME) 

country. In accordance with section 

771(18)(c)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof (TRBs), Finished and 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic 

of China: Preliminary Results of 2001–

2002 Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 

(February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). The Department has not revoked 

the PRC’s status as an NME country. 

Therefore, in this preliminary 

determination, we have treated the PRC 

as an NME country and applied our 

current NME methodology. 

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 normal value (NV) 

on the value of the NME producer’s 

factors of production. In accordance 

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

valuing the factors of production, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of factors of 

production 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. 

The Department has determined that 

India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

Colombia, and Thailand are countries 

that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC. See memorandum regarding 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe (‘‘C–WASP) Pipe’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries,’’ dated May 22, 2008 (Policy 

Memorandum). 

As noted above, during June and July 

2008, petitioners and Winner submitted 

comments on the appropriate surrogate 

country and surrogate values. 

Petitioners argue that India is the most 

appropriate surrogate country because 

(1) it is a market economy (ME) country 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC in terms of gross 

national income (GNI), (2) it is a 

significant producer of subject 

merchandise for which public financial 

statements are available, (3) it maintains 

public data for many of the factors of 

production, and (4) the Department has 

traditionally selected India as a 

surrogate country for the PRC. 

Petitioners add that Thai surrogate 

values are less appropriate than Indian 

values because the financial statements 

provided by Winner are not from 

producers of subject merchandise. 

Winner argues that Thailand, rather 

than India, should be selected as the 

surrogate country. Specifically, Winner 

contends that Thailand is the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

51790 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

1See Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. 

2See Crawfish from the PRC, and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

3As noted above, those financial statements 

include statements from Jindal SAW Ltd. Although 

Winner noted that Jindal SAW Ltd.’s financial 

statement listed ‘‘export benefits/government grants 

receivable,’’ the Department has insufficient 

information to determine whether these items relate 

to programs that have been countervailed. 

appropriate surrogate country in this 

case because: (1) it is an ME country 

that is economically comparable to the 

PRC, (2) it is a significant producer of 

subject merchandise (the ITC identified 

Thailand (not India) as one of four 

substantial suppliers of CWASPP to the 

United States), and (3) Thai CWASPP is 

more comparable to the PRC’s than 

India’s CWASPP because, based on ITC 

data, U.S. importers did not purchase 

Indian CWASPP. Moreover, Winner 

maintains that India and Thailand 

should not be considered to be equally 

comparable to the PRC because 

Thailand’s per capita GNI is closer to 

the PRC’s than India’s and the 

difference between Thailand’s GNI and 

India’s GNI is vast. In addition, Winner 

argues that the Department should not 

have listed India as a potential surrogate 

country because, in doing so, the 

Department skipped over nineteen other 

countries each with a GNI closer to that 

of the PRC. Winner also notes that 

predictability is not a basis for selecting 

India as the surrogate country; rather it 

is the Department’s obligation to use the 

best’ available information to calculate 

dumping margins as accurately as 

possible. Lastly, Winner claims India 

should not be selected as a surrogate 

country because studies indicate its 

import statistics are flawed due to 

misclassifications and thus they should 

not be used to calculate surrogate 

values. 

After evaluating interested parties’

comments, the Department has selected 

India as the surrogate country for this 

investigation. Although Winner has 

argued that Thailand’s level of 

economic development is closer to that 

of the PRC than India’s, the statute does 

not require the Department to use a 

surrogate country at a level of economic 

development closest to the NME 

country; it merely requires that the 

surrogate country used be economically 

comparable to the NME country. See 

section 773 (c)(2) of the Act. Thus, the 

Department does not rank–order 

countries’ comparability according to 

how close their per capita GNI is to that 

of the NME country in question. Rather, 

in NME proceedings, the Department 

creates a list of possible surrogate 

countries that it considers equivalent in 

terms of economic comparability. In 

addition, the potential surrogate 

countries identified reflect countries 

that, in the Department’s experience, are 

most likely to offer data necessary to 

conduct the proceeding. Given the 

foregoing, and the spectrum of 

economic development across the 

world, (e.g., the World Development 

Report used by the Department to select 

potential surrogate countries list 133 

countries with GNIs ranging from $100 

to $66,530), we continue to find it 

appropriate to consider India to be at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC. See Winner’s 

June 27, 2008, submission to the 

Department at Exhibit 2. 

With respect to the criterion that the 

surrogate country be a significant 

producer of merchandise that is 

comparable to subject merchandise, 

record evidence indicates that both 

India and Thailand are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

See memorandum from Melissa 

Blackledge, to the File regarding 

‘‘Potential Surrogate Countries: 

Significant Production of Comparable 

Merchandise’’ dated concurrently with 

this notice. 

Since both India and Thailand satisfy 

the statutory criteria for selecting a 

surrogate country, we examined 

whether one country is a more 

appropriate surrogate than the other 

based on data availability and quality. 

After examining the surrogate value 

information provided by the petitioners 

and Winner, we find the Indian 

surrogate financial data better reflect the 

overall experience of producers of 

subject merchandise in a surrogate 

country. The Indian financial statements 

from Jindal SAW Ltd. and Ratnamani 

Metals & Tubes Ltd. are from companies 

that produce subject and like 

merchandise, and while one is 

contemporaneous with the POI, the 

other includes the year ending March 

31, 2007, just three months prior to the 

beginning of the POI. The only usable 

Thai financial statement, for Great 

Central (International) Co., Ltd., is not 

contemporaneous with the POI and 

states that it ‘‘manufactures and 

distributes stainless steel,’’ yet it lacks 

information regarding the type of 

stainless steel produced, the type and 

extent of manufacturing, the raw 

materials produced and/or consumed, 

and its associations with other 

companies or group of companies. 

Generally, where available, we prefer to 

use more than one financial statement 

in order to obtain a broader industry 

representation.1

While petitioners and Winner have 

submitted financial statements in 

addition to those identified above, we 

have concluded that these financial 

statements are not useable. Specifically, 

the financial statements the Department 

finds not useable are: (1) two Thai 

financial statements, one from Thai–

German Products Public Co., Ltd. and 

one from Lokahit Metal Public Co., Ltd., 

which indicate receipt of subsidies, and 

(2) one Indian financial statement, from 

Suraj Stainless Ltd., which also 

indicates receipt of subsidies. 

In Crawfish from the PRC, the 

Department discussed its practice with 

respect to financial statements that 

contain evidence of subsidization: 

{T}he statute directs Commerce to 

base the valuation of the factors of 

production on ‘‘the best available 

information regarding the values of 

such factors in a market economy 

country or countries considered to 

be appropriate . . . .’’ Section 

773(c)(1) of the Act. Moreover, in 

valuing such factors, Congress 

further directed Commerce to 

‘‘avoid using any prices which it 

has reason to believe or suspect 

may be dumped or subsidized 

prices.’’ Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988, H.R. 

Rep. No. 576, 100 nth Cong., 2 nd 

Sess., at 590–91 (1988). The 

Department calculates the financial 

ratios based on financial statements 

of companies producing 

comparable merchandise from the 

surrogate country, some of which 

may contain evidence of 

subsidization. However, where the 

Department has a reason to believe 

or suspect that the company may 

have received subsidies, the 

Department may consider that the 

financial ratios derived from that 

company’s financial statements are 

less representative of the financial 

experience of that company or the 

relevant industry than the ratios 

derived from financial statements 

that do not contain evidence of 

subsidization. Consequently, {those 

statements that appear to reflect 

subsidies} do not constitute the best 

available information to value the 

surrogate financial ratios. 2

Given the record information regarding 

these three companies’ receipt of 

subsidies, and the fact that we have 

other acceptable financial statements to 

use as surrogates,3 we have not 

considered the financial data from these 

three companies in our surrogate ratio 

calculations. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 51791 

4See Amended Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 46957 (August 

22, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, dated August 8, 2007, at Comment 

1. 

5Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ‘‘while 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. 

6All separate rate applicants receiving a separate 

rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘SR 

Recipients.’’

Petitioners and Winner also submitted 

import statistics from which they 

calculated surrogate values. Although 

Winner has contested the quality of the 

Indian import data based on certain 

studies, the studies submitted by 

Winner do not reference the inputs used 

to produce CWASPP. In Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the PRC, the 

Department examined these studies and 

found they were not sufficiently specific 

to the inputs used in that case to 

support finding the Indian import data 

to be inaccurate.4 Likewise, the 

evidence that has been placed on the 

record of this proceeding by Winner 

does not cause the Department to 

question the quality of the Indian 

import statistics used here. Therefore, 

because India better represents the 

experience of producers of subject 

merchandise and provides better 

financial data; we have selected India as 

the surrogate country. 

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, 73 FR at 10221. The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate–rate 

status application. See also 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.5

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 arising from 

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’’). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign–

owned or located in a market economy, 

then a separate rate analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether it is 

independent from government control. 

A. Separate Rate Applicants 6

1. Wholly Foreign–Owned 

Winner, the mandatory respondent, 

reported that it is wholly owned by 

individuals or companies located in a 

market economy in its separate–rate 

application (‘‘Foreign–owned SR 

Applicant’’). Therefore, because it is 

wholly foreign–owned, and we have no 

evidence indicating that it is under the 

control of the PRC, further separate rates 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether this company is independent 

from government control. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 71104–05 (December 20, 1999) 

(where the respondent was wholly 

foreign–owned and, thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

Winner Machinery Enterprise Company 

Limited. 

2. Wholly Chinese–Owned 

One separate rate applicant, Jiuli, 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 Jiuli 

supports a preliminary finding of de 

jure absence of governmental control 

based on the following: (1) 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) and 

there are formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

the company. See Jiuli’s Separate Rate 

Application, (Jiuli’s SRA) dated April 

28, 2008. 

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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

51792 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

7The Department received only two timely 

responses to the requests for Q&V information that 

it sent to 11 potential exporters identified in the 

petition. The record indicates the questionnaires 

were received by the exporters. See Respondent 

Selection Memorandum. 

We determine that the evidence on 

the record supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

governmental control with respect to 

Jiuli 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) retains the 

proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; 3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and 4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management. See, e.g., Jiuli’s SRA. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by Winner and Jiuli 

demonstrates an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect to the exporters’ exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. 

Therefore, we have preliminary granted 

Winner and Jiuli separate rate status. 

We calculated a company–specific 

dumping margin for Winner and also 

assigned this margin to Jiuli. 

The PRC–Wide Entity 

Although PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

given an opportunity to provide Q&V 

information to the Department, not all 

exporters responded to the Department’s 

request for Q&V information.7 Based 

upon our knowledge of the volume of 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC, we have concluded that the 

companies that responded to the Q&V 

questionnaire do not account for all U.S. 

imports of subject merchandise from the 

PRC made during the POI. We have 

treated the non–responsive PRC 

producers/exporters as part of the PRC–

wide entity because they did not qualify 

for a separate rate. 

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

that the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination if an 

interested party: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified. 

As noted above, the PRC–wide entity 

withheld information requested by the 

Department. As a result, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find 

it appropriate to base the PRC–wide 

dumping margin on facts available. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–

Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products From the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000); see 

also Statement of Administrative 

Action, accompanying the Uruguay 

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

103–316, Vol. I at 843 (1994) (SAA), 

reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 at 

870. Because the PRC–wide entity did 

not respond to the Department’s request 

for information, the Department has 

concluded that the PRC–wide entity has 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily finds that, in selecting 

from among the facts available, an 

adverse inference is appropriate. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use, as adverse facts 

available (AFA): (1) information derived 

from the petition; (2) the final 

determination from the LTFV 

investigation; (3) a previous 

administrative review; or (4) any other 

information placed on the record. In 

selecting a rate for AFA, the Department 

selects one that is sufficiently adverse 

‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909 (February 23, 1998). It is the 

Department’s practice to select, as AFA, 

the higher of: (a) the highest margin 

alleged in the petition or (b) the highest 

calculated rate for any respondent in the 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold–Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From the 

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 

(May 31, 2000) and accompanying 

Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 

Facts Available. Here, we assigned the 

PRC–wide entity the dumping margin 

calculated for Winner, which exceeds 

the highest margin alleged in the 

petition and is the highest rate 

calculated in this investigation. 

Pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act, we 

do not need to corroborate this rate 

because it is based on information 

obtained during the course of this 

investigation rather than secondary 

information. See SAA at 870. The 

dumping margin for the PRC–wide 

entity applies to all entries of the 

merchandise under investigation except 

for entries of subject merchandise 

produced and exported by Winner and 

produced and exported by Jiuli. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Winner sold 

CWASPP to the United States at LTFV, 

we compared the weighted–average 

export price (EP) of the CWASPP to the 

NV of the CWASPP, as described in the 

‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘NV’’ sections of this 

notice. 

U.S. Price 

EP 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based the U.S. price of sales 

on EP because the first sale to 

unaffiliated purchasers was made prior 

to importation and the use of 

constructed export price methodology 

was not otherwise warranted. 

In accordance with section 772(c) of 

the Act, we calculated EP by deducting, 

where applicable, the following 

expenses from the starting price (gross 

unit price) charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States: foreign movement expenses, 

marine insurance, international freight, 

and foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses. 

We based these movement expenses 

on surrogate values where a PRC 

company provided the service and was 

paid in Renminbi (RMB). Where market 

economy service providers, who were 

paid in a market economy currency, 

provided movement services for over 33 

percent of subject merchandise 

shipments, by volume, we based the 

movement expenses on the actual price 

charged by the service provider. See 

Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 51793 

8 In addition, we note that legislative history 

explains that the Department is not required to 

conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 

prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 

590 (1988). As such, it is the Department’s practice 

to base its decision on information that is available 

to it at the time it makes its determination. 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non–Market 

Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and 

Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716 

(October 19, 2006); see also 

Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997) (Final 

Rule). For details regarding our EP 

calculation, see Circular Welded 

Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China –

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum for 

Winner Machinery Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

NV 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we constructed NV from the 

factors of production employed by 

Winner to manufacture subject 

merchandise during the POI. 

Specifically, we calculated NV by 

adding together the value of the factors 

of production, general expenses, profit, 

and packing costs. We valued the factors 

of production using prices and financial 

statements from the surrogate country, 

India. If market economy suppliers, who 

were paid in a market economy 

currency, supplied over 33 percent of 

the total volume of a material input 

purchased from all sources during the 

POI, we based the input value on the 

actual price charged by the supplier. If 

market economy suppliers, who were 

paid in a market economy currency, 

supplied less than 33 percent of the 

total volume of a material input 

purchased from all sources during the 

POI, we calculated the value by weight–

averaging surrogate values with the 

actual price charged by the suppliers. 

See Antidumping Methodologies: 

Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non–

Market Economy Wages, Duty 

Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006); see also 

Final Rule. In selecting surrogate values, 

we followed, to the extent practicable, 

the Department’s practice of choosing 

values which are non–export average 

values, contemporaneous with, or 

closest in time to, the POI, product–

specific, and tax–exclusive. See, e.g., 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). We also 

considered the quality of the source of 

surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. 

We valued material inputs and 

packing by multiplying the amount of 

the factor consumed in producing 

subject merchandise by the average unit 

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 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we could only 

obtain surrogate values that were not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

inflated (or deflated) the surrogate 

values using the Indian Wholesale Price 

Index (WPI) as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. 

Further, in calculating surrogate 

values from Indian imports, we 

disregarded imports from Indonesia, 

South Korea, and Thailand because in 

other proceedings the Department found 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to 

infer that all exports to all markets from 

these countries may be subsidized. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields from the People’s Republic 

of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002); 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).8

Thus, we have not used prices from 

these countries in calculating the Indian 

import–based surrogate values. 

We valued raw materials and packing 

materials using Indian import statistics, 

except as noted below. Winner reported 

both ME and NME purchases of grades 

304 and 316 stainless steel coil (coil) 

used to produce the merchandise under 

investigation. Petitioners argue that 

Winner purchased coil at dumped and 

subsidized prices. Specifically, they 

argue that the Department should not 

use Winner’s ME purchase price to 

value coil because: (1) the Department 

has a dumping order on U.S. imports of 

coil from Taiwan, and Winner’s coil 

supplier has received an adverse facts 

available (AFA) dumping margin in the 

proceeding; (2) the European Union 

(EU) initiated a dumping investigation 

on stainless steel cold rolled flat 

products from Taiwan which covers the 

period during which the respondent 

purchased coil from its supplier; ( 3) the 

European Community (EC) imposed 

countervailing duties (CVD) on 

Taiwanese hot–rolled flat steel coils, 

(specifically, petitioners argue that the 

CVD programs existed during the 

instant POI, and, although Winner’s coil 

supplier was not examined in the EC’s 

CVD investigation, it is reasonable to 

believe that this supplier could have 

benefitted from these programs since the 

programs are broadly available, non–

industry specific, and were likely used 

by steel producers); (4) Winner’s ME 

purchase prices are well below the 

prices of 304 and 316 stainless steel coil 

from the Steel Authority of India 

Limited (SAIL), prices reported by the 

publication American Metal Market 

(AMM), and prices quoted on 

metalprices.com; and (5) Winner’s ME 

purchase prices are below the estimated 

cost of producing grades 304 and 316 

stainless steel, even where one 

conservatively treats alloys as the only 

material input used to produce the 

stainless steel (petitioners constructed 

the cost of grades 304 and 316 stainless 

steel using market prices for alloys and 

Indian surrogate overhead and profit 

ratios). 

Winner counters that its ME 

purchases of grades 304 and 316 coil 

(which constitute over 33% of its total 

purchases of coil) have not been 

dumped or subsidized and should be 

used to value the coils that it consumed. 

Specifically, Winner argues that: (1) in 

the latest review in the U.S. 

antidumping proceeding cited by 

petitioners, another company, not its 

coil supplier, received the AFA 

dumping margin, while the review of 

Winner’s supplier covering the instant 

POI was rescinded; (2) the EU has made 

no determination in its dumping 

investigation; (3) evidence of third–

country (EC and US) dumping is 

irrelevant; (4) there is no evidence that 

Winner’s coil supplier received 

subsidies or that there are subsidies 

available for coil, (5) the EC CVD order 

is outdated (2000), expired in 2005, 

does not cover stainless coil (only hot–

rolled coil), and does not name 

Winner’s coil supplier, and (6) 

petitioners’ price and cost comparisons 

are unreliable because: (a) Indian SAIL 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

51794 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

9Although not mentioned by petitioners, we 

noted that SAIL is specifically named in the EC 

CVD order on hot-rolled steel. 

10The Department has previously noted that it 

will ‘‘disregard market economy prices for imported 

inputs as dumped only when the importing country 

has an antidumping duty order in effect for the 

products in question * * * dumping is specific to 

competitive conditions in particular markets and 

cannot be assumed to apply globally.’’ See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts From 

the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 20373 (April 

25, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

price quotes do not indicate the seller or 

buyer, are not certified by anyone, and 

do not include discounts, rebates, etc., 

(b) AMM prices are U.S.-specific 

representing industry averages and do 

not reasonably reflect Taiwanese 

stainless prices, and (c) petitioners’

calculation of the cost used in their 

comparison is inaccurate. Lastly, 

Winner claims that Asia MEPS 

(International) Ltd. (MEPS) data 

corroborates Winner’s coil supplier’s 

coil prices (petitioners identified MEPS 

as a leading source of pricing data in the 

stainless steel industry.) 

Petitioners then argue that import 

statistics, regardless of the selected 

surrogate country, should not be used to 

value coil because they do not 

differentiate between basic coil and 

grades 304 and 316 coil. Petitioners 

claim that differentiating between other 

grades of coil and grades 304 and 316 

coil is critical because grades 304 and 

316 coil contain high concentrations of 

expensive alloys, such as nickel and 

molybdenum, and cost several times 

more than basic coil. Specifically, 

petitioners contend that the average unit 

values from Indian import data for the 

HTS classification for coil, for example, 

do not approach the cost of the nickel 

and molybdenum contained in grades 

304 and 316 coils, and therefore, the 

Department should use SAIL prices as 

the surrogate value for 304 and 316 

coil.9

The Department finds no evidence 

that Winner’s ME purchases were 

dumped or subsidized because: (1) 

neither the U.S. AD order on coil from 

Taiwan nor the EU investigation have 

relevance to the prices paid in the 

PRC,10 (2) the countervailing duty 

proceeding conducted by the EC (a) 

does not cover merchandise produced 

by the Taiwanese coil supplier, (b) does 

not cover stainless coil, (c) does not 

name the Taiwanese coil supplier as a 

respondent, and (d) expired in 2005, 

and (3) there is no evidence on the 

record that any of the subsidies on hot 

rolled steel found by the EC to be 

countervailable still exist or, even if 

they exist, that the Taiwanese coil 

supplier would be eligible to receive 

them. Moreover, although Winner’s ME 

purchase prices for stainless coil are 

lower than the prices and constructed 

costs submitted by petitioners, prices 

can be affected by numerous 

indeterminate factors. Thus, these price 

differences do not provide a basis to 

believe or suspect that the product may 

be dumped or subsidized. Therefore, 

because the quantity of ME purchases of 

coil exceeded 33% of Winner’s total 

purchases of coil, the Department has 

used the ME purchase price as its 

surrogate value for all purchases of coil. 

We valued water using data from the 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (www.midcindia.org) 

because it includes a wide range of 

industrial water tariffs. This source 

provides 386 industrial water rates 

within the Maharashtra province from 

June 2003, 193 for the ‘‘inside industrial 

areas’’ usage category, and 193 for the 

‘‘outside industrial areas’’ usage 

category. Because the rate was not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

inflated the rate using the WPI. See the 

Memorandum Regarding ‘‘Investigation 

of Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless 

Pressure Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Values 

Selected’’ for Winner dated 

concurrently with this notice (Factor 

Value Memorandum). 

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 titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated July 2006. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly–available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Since the rates are not contemporaneous 

with the POI, we inflated the values 

using the WPI. See Factor Value 

Memorandum. 

We valued natural gas using a value 

obtained from the Gas Authority of 

India Ltd.’s website, a supplier of 

natural gas in India. See http:// 

www.gailonline.com/gailnewsite/ 

index.html. The value relates to the 

period January through June 2002. 

Therefore, we inflated the value using 

the WPI. In addition, we added 

transportation charges to the value. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 27991 (May 15, 2006), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

We valued fuel oil/diesel using the 

prices for petrol from Indian Oil Corp. 

Ltd. from June 2007, after inflating the 

value using the WPI for the POI. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the most recently 

calculated regression–based wage rate, 

which relies on 2005 data. This wage 

rate can be found on the Department’s 

website on Import Administration’s 

home page. See Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries (revised May 

2008) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/index.html). The source of these 

wage rate data on the Import 

Administration’s web site is the 

International Labour Organization, 

Geneva, Labour Statistics Database 

Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. 

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 Winner. See Factor Value 

Memorandum. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per–unit 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. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POI, we 

deflated the rate using the WPI. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. 

Specifically, we averaged the public 

brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. 

in the antidumping duty administrative 

review of certain preserved mushrooms 

from India, Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the 

LTFV investigation of certain lined 

paper products from India, and Essar 

Steel in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India. 

See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

India: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45012 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 51795 

(August 8, 2006) and Certain hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2018,2021 (January 12, 2006) 

(unchanged in Certain Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 

(July 18, 2006). Since the resulting value 

is not contemporaneous with the POI, 

we inflated the rate using the WPI. See 

Factor Value Memorandum. We valued 

international freight and marine 

insurance using purchase prices. See 

analysis memorandum for Winner dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

We valued factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit, using the 2006–

2007 audited financial statements of 

Jindal SAW Ltd. and Ratnamani Metals 

& Tubes Ltd. See Factor Value 

Memorandum. For additional 

information regarding the selection of 

financial ratios, see the ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section above. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

submit publicly available information 

with which to value factors of 

production in the final determination 

within 40 days after the date of 

publication of the preliminary 

determination. 

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. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice. This change in 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Policy 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 

applies 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 cash–

deposit 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, ‘‘Separate Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations Involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries.’’

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted–average dumping margins 

are as follows: 

Exporter & Producer 

Weighted– 

Average 

Margin 

ZHEJIANG JIULI HI–TECH METALS

CO., LTD. Produced by: 

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi–Tech Metals 

Co., Ltd. .................................. 22.03% 

WINNER MACHINERY ENTERPRISE

CO., LTD. Produced by: Winner Stainless Steel Tube Co., 

Ltd. .......................................... 22.03% 

PRC–WIDE RATE ......................... 22.03% 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of CWASPP 

from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

CWASPP, or sales (or the likelihood of 

sales) for importation, of the subject 

merchandise within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date the 

final verification report is issued in this 

proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in case briefs, no later 

than five days after the deadline for 

submitting case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d)(1). 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. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we intend 

to hold the hearing three days after the 

deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs 

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. Parties 

should confirm by telephone the date, 

time, and location of the hearing two 

days before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties that wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

51796 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 173 / Friday, September 5, 2008 / Notices 

Postponement of Final Determination 

and Extension of Provisional Measures 

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the 

Act, on August 15, 2008, as amended on 

August 22, 2008, Winner requested that 

in the event of an affirmative 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation, the Department postpone 

its final determination by 60 days. At 

the same time, Winner agreed that the 

Department may extend the application 

of the provisional measures prescribed 

under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4–

month period to a 6–month period. In 

accordance with section 733(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b), we are 

granting the request and are postponing 

the final determination until no later 

than 135 days after the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register 

because: (1) our preliminary 

determination is affirmative, (2) the 

requesting exporters account for a 

significant proportion of exports of the 

subject merchandise, and (3) no 

compelling reasons for denial exist. 

Suspension of liquidation will be 

extended accordingly. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 27, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20508 Filed 9–4–08 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XK22 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Council’s 

Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish 

Committee will hold a public meeting 

on Amendment 10 to the Atlantic 

Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery 

Management Plan and if time allows, 

also on Amendment 11. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, September 23, 2008, from 10 

a.m. to 6 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Sheraton Newark Airport Hotel, 128 

Frontage Road, Newark, NJ 07114; 

telephone: (973) 690–5500. 

Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 300 S. New 

Street, Room 2115, Dover, DE 19904; 

telephone: (302) 674–2331. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, 300 S. New Street, Room 2115, 

Dover, DE 19904; telephone: (302) 674–

2331, extension 19. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purposes of this meeting are: to finalize 

Amendment 10’s butterfish rebuilding 

and bycatch reduction preferred 

alternatives; and, if time allows, review 

progress on Amendment 11 (especially, 

but not limited to, alternatives dealing 

with instituting limited access in the 

mackerel fishery). 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Actions will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to M. 

Jan Bryan at the Mid-Atlantic Council 

Office, (302) 674–2331 extension 18, at 

least 5 days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–20605 Filed 9–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XK21 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) and its 

advisory committees will hold public 

meetings, September 29 - October 7, 

2008 at Sheraton Hotel, 401 East 6th 

Avenue, Anchorage, AK. 

DATES: The Council will begin its 

plenary session at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, 

October 1 continuing through Tuesday 

October 7, 2008. The Council’s Advisory 

Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m., Monday, 

September 29 and continue through 

Saturday October 4. The Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 

8 a.m. on Monday, September 29 and 

continue through Wednesday October 1, 

2008. The Ecosystem Committee will 

meet Tuesday, September 30, from 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m. The Enforcement 

Committee will meet Tuesday, 

September 30, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in 

the. All meetings are open to the public, 

except executive sessions. 

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at 

the Sheraton Hotel, 401 East 6th 

Avenue, Anchorage, AK. 

Council address: North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 

4th Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 

99501–2252. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Witherell, Council staff, 

telephone: (907) 271–2809. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council 

Plenary Session: The agenda for the 

Council’s plenary session will include 

the following issues. The Council may 

take appropriate action on any of the 

issues identified. 

1. Reports 

Executive Director’s Report (including 

Joint Protocol Committee report) 

NMFS Management Report (including 

update on halibut area 2C regulations; 

update on Community Development 

Quota oversight regulations, and annual 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) 

crab report.) 

Alaska Department of Fish & Game 

Report 

U.S. Coast Guard Report 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report 

Protected Species Report (including 

update on the BiOp schedule) 

2. Halibut Management: Report from 

ADF&G on Charter halibut harvests; 

final action on Charter Halibut Catch 

Sharing Plan; Final action on Area 3A 

Guideline Harvest measures. 

3. BSAI Crab Issues: Receive Plan 

Team report, approve Crab Stock 

Assessment Fishery Evaluation Report 

and adopt Overfishing Levels (OFLs); 

Final action on St. George Protection 

Measures; receive BSAI Crab Program 3- 

year review report; receive Crab 

Committee report/crew proposals; 

preliminary review of BSAI 90.10 

Amendment package; receive report on 

Crab Economic Data report metadata; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES