Notices. Proposed collection; Comments requested
17,155 words·~78 min read·
/register/2008/01/30/08-404·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Utilities Service Notice of Request for Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCIES: Rural Housing Service, Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed collection; Comments requested. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces Rural Development's intention to request a revision for a currently approved information collection in support of loan programs administered by the Rural Housing Service, Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by April 29, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Gianella, Accountant, Office of the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Policy and Internal Review Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 33, P.O. Box 200011, St. Louis, MO 63120, *Telephone:*
(314)457-4298. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Form RD 1951-65, Customer Initiated Payments
(CIP)Enrollment Form; Form RD 1951-66, FedWire Worksheet, and Form RD 3550-28, Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized Payments. *OMB Number:* 0575-0184. *Expiration Date of Approval:* June 30, 2008. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Rural Development uses electronic methods (Customer Initiated Payments [CIP], FedWire, and Preauthorized Debits [PAD]) for receiving and processing loan payments and collections. These electronic collection methods provide a means for Rural Development borrowers to transmit loan payments from their financial institution
(FI)accounts to Rural Development's Treasury Account and receive credit for their payments. To administer these electronic loan collection methods, Rural Development collects the borrower's FI routing information (routing information includes the FI routing number and the borrower's account number). Rural Development uses Agency approved forms for collecting bank routing information for CIP, FedWire, and PAD. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .5 hours per response. Each Rural Development borrower who elects to participate in electronic loan payments will only prepare one response for the life of their loan unless they change financial institutions or accounts. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, local, or tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 23,520. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 23,520. *Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents:* 11,760 hours. Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at
(202)692-0043. *Comments are invited on:*
(1)The need for the information including whether the information has practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of the reporting burden estimate;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents. Comments should be submitted to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval, and will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 24, 2008. Russell T. Davis, Administrator, Rural Housing Service. [FR Doc. E8-1577 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-914] Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube
(LWR)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. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen or Drew Jackson, 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)482-2769 or 482-4406, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On June 27, 2007, the Department received petitions concerning imports of LWR from the PRC, Mexico, Turkey, and the Republic of Korea (Korea) filed in proper form by Allied Tube and Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube Company, California Steel and Tube, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded Tube, and Western Tube and Conduit (collectively, the petitioners). The Department initiated antidumping duty investigations of LWR from the above-mentioned countries on July 17, 2007. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 40274 (July 24, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). On August 22, 2007, 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 LWR from the PRC, Mexico, Turkey, and Korea. *See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and 731-TA-1118-1121 (Preliminary),* 72 FR 49310 (August 28, 2007). On July 18, 2007, the Department requested quantity and value (Q&V) information from the 53 companies that were identified in the petition as potential producers or exporters of LWR from the PRC. *See* Exhibit 10, Volume I, of the June 27, 2007, Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (the petition). The Department received timely responses to its Q&V questionnaire from the following 10 companies (three of which were identified in the petition): Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd. (ZZPC), Suns International Trading Limited (Suns), Liaoning Cold Forming Sectional Company Limited (Liaoning), Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. (Lets Win), Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Baishun), Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. (Walsall), Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co., Ltd. (Worldunion), Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Weifang), Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. (Jiangyin), and Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd. (Dalian). On August 16, 2007, the Department selected ZZPC and Lets Win as mandatory respondents. *See* memorandum regarding “Selection of Respondents in the Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 16, 2007 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). The Department received separate-rate applications from ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, Jiangyin, and Dalian. The Department did not receive separate-rate applications from Suns and Liaoning. On August 17, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to the mandatory respondents. ZZPC and Lets Win submitted timely responses to the Department's questionnaire during September and October 2007. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received responses from, ZZPC and Lets Win in October, November, and December 2007 and January 2008. The petitioners submitted comments to the Department regarding ZZPC's and Lets Wins' questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses, and the separate rates response of Dalian in October and December 2007. On September 21, 2007, the Department released to interested parties a memorandum which listed potential surrogate countries and invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country and factor value selection. No party responded to the Department's invitation to comment on surrogate country selection. However, in October, November, and December 2007 and January 2008, both the petitioners and the respondents submitted surrogate values, including surrogate financial statements, for use in this investigation. All of the submitted surrogate data are from India. In August and September 2007, the petitioners and respondents submitted comments to the Department regarding the appropriate model matching criteria. On November 1, 2007, the petitioners alleged targeted dumping by ZZPC and Lets Win. On December 10, 2007, the Department sent a letter to the petitioners requesting more information regarding both targeted dumping allegations. *See* Letter from Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4, to Petitioners, concerning, “Targeted Dumping Allegation,” dated December 10, 2007. On December 17, 2007, the petitioners responded to the Department's December 10th request for additional information. See the “Targeted Dumping” section of this notice for additional information regarding these allegations. On December 13, 2007, the petitioners requested that the Department make a finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of LWR from the PRC. The Department issued questionnaires regarding critical circumstances to Lets Win and ZZPC on December 18, 2007. Lets Win and ZZPC submitted their responses to those questionnaires on December 28, 2007, and January 2, 2008. See the “Critical Circumstances” section of this notice for additional information. Period of Investigation The period of investigation
(POI)is October 1, 2006, through March 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.* , June 2007). *See* 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Scope of the Investigation The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon-quality 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 this investigation 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 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 no comments concerning the scope of the LWR antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. Accordingly, we have not made changes to the scope of this investigation. Critical Circumstances The Department preliminarily finds that there is reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity because, in accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, importers of LWR produced by the PRC-wide entity knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales. See Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, “Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part,” dated concurrently with this memorandum. In addition, the Department also preliminarily finds that imports from the PRC-wide entity satisfy section 733(e)(1)(B) of Act because these imports were massive during a relatively short period. *See id.* However, with respect to Lets Win, ZZPC, and the separate-rate companies, the Department does not preliminarily find that there is reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from these companies because the record indicates that imports from these companies were not massive during a relatively short period. See section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act; see also Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, “Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part,” dated concurrently with this memorandum. Accordingly, for Lets Win, ZZPC, and the separate-rate companies, the statutory requirement imposed by section 733(e)(1)(B) of Act has not been satisfied and, therefore, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for these entities. Targeted Dumping Pursuant to section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, in calculating dumping margins in investigations the Department normally will compare U.S. prices and normal values using a weighted average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction comparison methodology. However, section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act allows the Department to compare transaction-specific export or constructed export prices to weighted-average normal values if there is a pattern of export or constructed export prices for comparable merchandise that differ significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time and the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into account using the weighted average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methods. *See* sections 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Further, 19 CFR 351.414(f)(1)(i) requires that a determination of targeted dumping be made “through the use of, among other things, standard and appropriate statistical techniques.” The regulations further elaborate that targeted dumping allegations “must include all supporting factual information, and an explanation as to why the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction method could not take into account any alleged price differences.” *See* 19 CFR 351.414(f)(3). On November 1, 2007, the petitioners alleged that Lets Win and ZZPC targeted certain sales of LWR for dumping. Specifically, the petitioners alleged that targeted dumping occurred where the average net price of all of the subject merchandise sold to a particular customer, entered into a particular port, or sold during a specific month, differed by more than two percent from the overall average net price of all of the subject merchandise sold by the respondent during the POI. The petitioners believe the two-percent price difference supports a finding of targeted dumping because:
(1)This approach is consistent with the methodology used in the antidumping duty investigation of coated free sheet
(CFS)paper from the Republic of South Korea; and
(2)LWR is a commodity product sold in a competitive market and, thus, any price difference is critical. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the Republic of Korea,* 72 FR 60630 (October 25, 2007) ( *CFS from Korea* ) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; *see also Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey,* Investigation Nos. 701-TA-449 and 731-TA-1118-1121 (Preliminary) USITC Pub. 3941 at 10 (August 2007) (noting that the parties generally agree that LWR is a commodity-like product). Based on the price comparisons described above, the petitioners argue that Lets Win engaged in targeted dumping during a certain time period whereas ZZPC engaged in targeted dumping with respect to certain customers, regions, and time periods. After reviewing the petitioners' targeted dumping allegations, the Department determined that the allegations lacked basic information and support, and informed the petitioners that they failed to:
(1)Establish that the two-percent price variation is significant for the LWR market;
(2)establish that the price differences are based on purchasers, regions, or time periods rather than other factors ( *e.g.* , general price fluctuations in the market, product differences, differences in channels of distribution or quantities purchased); and
(3)explain why the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction comparison methodology cannot take into account the observed price differences. *See* the Department's December 10, 2007, letter to the petitioners. In response to the Department's December 10, 2007, letter, the petitioners asserted that the ITC has already analyzed the LWR market and found the subject merchandise to be a commodity product. *See* the petitioners' December 17, 2007, submission to the Department. The petitioners noted that the only stated reason for accepting a two-percent price variation as evidence of targeted dumping in the CFS paper investigation was the ITC's finding that CFS paper is a commodity product. According to the petitioners, additional market analysis related to targeted dumping (beyond the ITC's finding) was not engaged in by the petitioner in CFS paper, nor is such extensive market analysis required by the statute. Thus, the petitioners maintained that the ITC's findings are more than adequate support for their proposed two-percent benchmark. Moreover, the petitioners argued that price differences in commodity-like products sold to different purchasers or regions or in different time periods can only be captured through an average-to-transaction comparison. Specifically, the petitioners stated that if the Department were to average prices to targeted and non-targeted groups the lower prices in the targeted groups would be offset by the prices in the non-targeted groups. We have determined that in this case using an average-to-transaction comparison methodology results in the same overall antidumping margin for each of the respondents as using an average-to-average comparison methodology. *See* memoranda to the File from Jeff Pedersen for each respondent regarding “Dumping Margins Based on an Average-to-Transaction Comparison Methodology.” Thus, the petitioners' claim that the observed price differences can only be taken into account using an average-to-transaction comparison is not supported by the facts in this case. *See id.* Therefore, the requirement of section 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act that the average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction methodology cannot account for the price differences is not met. *See also “Statement of Administrative Action,* ” accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
(1994)at 843 ( *SAA* ) (“{b}efore relying on {the average-to-transaction comparison} methodology, however, Commerce must establish and provide an explanation why it cannot account for such differences through the use of an average-to-average or transaction-to-transaction comparison.”). Finally, the Department notes that the petitioners failed to adequately respond to the Department's concerns regarding their targeted dumping allegations. Specifically, the petitioners failed to describe how the LWR market functions and did not adequately explain why a two-percent price difference should be considered to be significant for the “commodity-like product,” LWR, given the characteristics of the LWR market. 1 As provided in the SAA “the Administration intends that in determining whether a pattern of significant price differences exist, Commerce will proceed on a case-by-case basis, because small differences may be significant for one industry or one type of product, but not for another.” *See* SAA at 843. Moreover, the petitioners failed to address or take into consideration other possible reasons for the observed price differences ( *e.g.* , general price fluctuations in the market, product differences (the petitioners did not compare prices of identical merchandise in their analysis), differences in channels of distribution or quantities purchased, *etc.* ). Thus, the petitioners did not adequately establish price patterns based on purchasers, regions, or periods of time. We note that in the CFS paper investigation, a number of these other possible reasons for the observed price differences were taken into account by comparing prices for identical merchandise sold at the same level of trade on a month-to-month basis. 1 Additionally, it is important to note that in the investigation of CFS paper from the Republic of Korea, rather than adopting a two-percent benchmark in analyzing targeted dumping the Department specifically noted that it “has not adopted any specific percentages suggested by both parties in their contentions regarding the definition of significance.” *See CFS from Korea* and accompanying “Issues and Decision Memorandum” at Comment 3. Given the foregoing, we find that the petitioners' allegations do not contain sufficient information to conduct a targeted dumping analysis. 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). 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, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. *See* memorandum regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube
(Pipe)from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,” dated August 22, 2007 (Policy Memorandum). From among these economically comparable countries, the Department has preliminarily selected India as the surrogate country for this investigation because it determined that:
(1)India is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise and
(2)reliable Indian data for valuing the factors of production are readily available. *See* memorandum regarding “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country” dated November 13, 2007. Separate Rates 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 involving 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. ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, Jiangyin, and Dalian provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of *de jure* and *de facto* government control, and therefore are entitled to a separate rate. Suns and Liaoning did not submit separate-rate applications. Accordingly, Suns and Liaoning have not provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of *de jure* and *de facto* government control. The Department's separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, *e.g.* , export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China,* 63 FR 72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm level. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine,* 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and *TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997). To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, 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* ). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both *de jure* and *de facto* governmental control over export activities. 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. Information submitted by ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin indicates that there are no restrictive stipulations associated with their exporter and/or business licenses; and there are legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found a *de jure* absence of government control over these companies' export activities. Walsall reported that it is wholly foreign-owned by China Pacific Limited (CPL), which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. CPL is in turn wholly owned by a Hong Kong citizen. Since there is no PRC ownership of Walsall, and we have no evidence indicating that this company is under the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether Walsall is independent from government control. *See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001) (finding that no separate rates analysis for Hongfa was necessary because the company was wholly foreign owned), unchanged in the final determination; *see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China,* 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 1999). The Department determined that Dalian did not make a sale to the United States during the POI and thus should not be considered for a separate rate. See memorandum regarding “Dalian Brollo Steel Tubes Ltd.'s Eligibility for a Separate Rate” dated concurrently with this notice. 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 considers an analysis of *de facto* control to be critical in determining whether a respondent is, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control that would preclude the Department from assigning the respondent a separate rate. ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin have each provided information indicating that they:
(1)Set export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;
(2)have the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;
(3)have autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management; and
(4)retain proceeds from sales and make independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found a *de facto* absence of government control over these companies' export activities. Based on the foregoing, the Department has preliminarily granted ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin, separate, company-specific dumping margins. The Department calculated company-specific dumping margins for ZZPC and Lets Win and assigned Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin a dumping margin equal to the weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for ZZPC and Lets Win. As noted above, Suns and Liaoning did not submit separate-rate applications. Accordingly, Suns and Liaoning have not provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate independently of *de jure* and *de facto* government control. Therefore, the Department has not preliminarily granted Suns and Liaoning a separate rate. 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. 2 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. 2 The Department received only 10 timely responses to the requests for Q&V information that it sent to the 53 potential exporters identified in the petition, and there is no indication that any of these Q&V questionnaires were rejected or undeliverable. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, 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, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. 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* SAA 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), information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or 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 the
(a)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 21, 2000) at the “Facts Available” section. Here, we assigned the PRC-wide entity the dumping margin calculated for ZZPC, which exceeds the highest margin alleged in the petition and is the highest rate calculated in this investigation. 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. 3 The PRC-wide dumping margin applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries of subject merchandise from ZZPC, Lets Win, Baishun, Walsall, Worldunion, Weifang, and Jiangyin. 3 Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate secondary information which the SAA describes as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See also SAA* at 870. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether ZZPC or Lets Win sold LWR to the United States at LTFV, we compared the weighted-average export price
(EP)of the LWR to the NV of the LWR, 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 was not otherwise warranted. During the POI, Lets Win made certain sales of subject merchandise to the United States through an unaffiliated trading company located in the PRC. Lets Win claims that it established all of the essential terms of such U.S. sales through its negotiations with the first unaffiliated U.S. customers. 4 Based on Lets Win's claims, the Department has determined that Lets Win's reportable sales should include the PRC trading company's sales of subject merchandise that were arranged and negotiated by Lets Win (using the price charged to the U.S. customer as the starting gross price for calculating EP). *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China* , 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) ( *Diamond Sawblades* ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17 (the Department concluded that the seller was the party that negotiated and executed all of the essential terms of sale). ZZPC reported that it made sales of subject merchandise to an unaffiliated PRC trading company with knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States. However, unlike Lets Win, ZZPC reported that the unaffiliated trading company directly and independently negotiated the terms of the sales with U.S. customers. 5 In light of ZZPC's claims, and the fact that the Department ignores transactions between companies in an NME country, we have not considered these sales through the unaffiliated PRC trading company in our analysis because they are not ZZPC's reportable sales. This approach is consistent with that taken in the investigation of diamond sawblades from the PRC. *See Diamond Saw Blades; see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 noting that “ * * * the knowledge test applies only to exporters that have dealings with entities outside of the NME country. In an NME situation, the Department ignores transactions between producers and exporters that are both in-country, since we will not base export price on internal transactions between two companies located in the NME country”). 4 *See* Lets Win's November 6, 2007, supplemental response at C-1 through C-8 and SA-8. 5 *See* ZZPC's December 17, 2007, supplemental response at 5 through 8. 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). If 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. If market economy service providers, who were paid in a market economy currency, provided movement services for less than 33 percent of subject merchandise shipments, by volume, we calculated the movement expenses by weight-averaging surrogate values with the actual price charged by the service provider. *See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments* , 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006). For details regarding our EP calculation, see analysis memoranda for ZZPC and Lets Win dated concurrently with this notice. NV In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we constructed NV from the factors of production employed by the respondents 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. 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. We derived the average unit value of the factor from Indian import statistics. 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). 6 Thus, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values. 6 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. We valued raw materials and packing materials using Indian import statistics, except as noted below. We valued electricity using rates from *Key World Energy Statistics 2003* , published by the International Energy Agency. Because these data were not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the values using the WPI. *See* the memoranda regarding “Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values Selected” for ZZPC and Lets Win dated concurrently with this notice (Factor Value Memoranda). Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued direct, indirect, and packing labor, using the most recently calculated regression-based wage rate, which relies on 2004 data. This wage rate can currently be found on the Department's Web site on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html* . The source of these wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because 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 ZZPC and Lets Win. *See* Factor Value Memoranda. We valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( *http://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 value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using the WPI. *See* Factor Value Memoranda. We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate from data obtained from the Web site of an Indian transportation company, InFreight Technologies India Limited. *See http://www.infreight.com/* . This average rate was used by the Department in the antidumping duty administrative review of *Saccharin from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 72 FR 25247 (May 4, 2007). Because this value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using the WPI. *See* Factor Value Memoranda. 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 two 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 and those reported by Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the LTFV investigation of certain lined paper 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 (August 8, 2006). Because the resulting value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using the WPI. *See* Factor Value Memoranda. ZZPC reported that all of its U.S. sales had international freight arranged by an NME freight forwarder. We valued international freight expenses using U.S. dollar freight quotes that the Department obtained from Maersk Sealand (Maersk), a market-economy shipper. We obtained quotes from Maersk for shipments from the PRC port of export and the U.S. port of import reported by ZZPC for its U.S. sales. Because these data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted them for inflation using the U.S. WPI. *See* Factor Value Memoranda. We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, using the 2006-2007 audited financial statements of Zenith Birla (India) Limited and Bihar Tubes Limited. Record evidence indicates that these are Indian companies that produce subject merchandise. We did not rely upon a third company's financial statement that was placed on the record, namely the financial statement of Bhawani Industries Limited (Bhawani), because Bhawani's financial statement lists a “DEPB Premium” in “Other Income.” India's DEPB Scheme has been found by the Department to provide a countervailable subsidy. *See, e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Recision of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,* 64 FR 61592 (November 12, 1999) (unchanged in final results); *see also http://ia.ita.doc.gov/esel/eselframes.html* . In *Crawfish from the PRC,* the Department noted that where it has reason to believe or suspect that a company may have received subsidies, financial ratios derived from that company's financial statements do not constitute the best available information with which to value financial ratios. *See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results And Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews* , 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Given the record information regarding Bhawani's use of the DEPB program, and the fact that we have other acceptable financial statements to use as surrogates, consistent with the Department's decision in *Crawfish from the PRC* , we have not used Bhawani's financial data in our surrogate ratio calculations. *See* Factor Value Memoranda. 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 (percent) Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd. 264.64 Kunshan Lets Win Steel Machinery Co., Ltd. 223.52 Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 247.75 Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd. 247.75 Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co., Ltd. 247.75 Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. 247.75 Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd. 247.75 PRC-Wide Rate 264.64 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 As noted above, the Department has found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from the PRC-Wide entity. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWR from the PRC-Wide entity as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section of this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . For the mandatory respondents, Lets Win and ZZPC, and the separate rate applicants, Wuxi Baishun Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Guangdong Walsall Steel Pipe Industrial Co., Ltd., Wuxi Worldunion Trading Co., Ltd., Weifang East Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Jianye Metal Products Co., Ltd., we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWR from these companies as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section of this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption upon 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 NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. 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 LWR, 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 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, 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. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on November 27, 2007, and December 10, 2007, Lets Win and ZZPC, respectively, 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, Lets Win and ZZPC requested that the Department 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), 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, 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** . 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: January 23, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-1664 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-815] Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later than 75 days after the signature date of the preliminary determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Tyler Weinhold, or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0408,
(202)482-1121, or
(202)482-0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 24, 2007, the Department initiated the antidumping duty investigation of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. *See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Republic of Korea, Mexico, Turkey, and the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 40274 (July 24, 2007) ( *Initiation Notice* ). The petitioners in this investigation are Allied Tube and Conduit, Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube Company, California Steel and Tube, EXLTUBE, Hannibal Industries, Leavitt Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Southland Tube, Vest Inc., Welded Tube, and Western Tube and Conduit. The Department set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments. *See Initiation Notice,* 72 FR 40274, (July 24, 2007). No party submitted comments on the scope. On August 28, 2007, the United States International Trade Commission (the Commission) preliminarily determined there is a reasonable indication that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from the People's Republic of China, Korea, Mexico and Turkey are materially injuring the U.S. industry and notified the Department of its findings. *See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From China, Korea, Mexico, and Turkey Case Numbers. 701-TA-449 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-1118-1121 (Preliminary),* 72 FR 49310, (August 28, 2007). On October 19, 2007, the petitioners requested the Department postpone the preliminary determination by 50 days. The Department published an extension notice on November 14, 2007, which set the new deadline for the preliminary determination at January 23, 2008. *See Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico, Turkey, and the Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigations,* 72 FR 64044, (November 14, 2007). Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject merchandise. The Department identified a large number of producers and exporters of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey and determined it was not practicable to examine each known producer or exporter of the subject merchandise, as provided in section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act. On July 31, 2007, we sent quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to the following seventeen companies identified in the petition or through our own research: Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Borusan Mannesmann Boru, Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Goktas Tube, Guven Boru Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret, Noksel Steel Pipe Co., MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San. ve Tic. A.S., Ozborsan Boru San. ve Tic. A.S., Ozgur Boru, Ozdemir Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti., Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Toscelik Profil ve Sac End. A.S, Umran Steel Pipe Inc., Yusan Industries, Ltd., and Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. The Department did not receive a response to the Q&V questionnaire from the following six companies: Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Goktas Tube, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel Pipe Inc., and Yusan Industries, Ltd. Furthermore, Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret and Ozgur Boru 1 submitted untimely, improperly filed, or incomplete responses. These nine companies that failed to respond, or provided an improperly filed and/or incomplete response, were given a second opportunity to file, but none of them did so in a timely manner. 2 1 Ozmak Makina ve Elektrik Sanayi, which has been identified as another name for Ozgur Boru ( *see* Memorandum to the File, “Communication from Ozgur Boru,” dated August 22, 2007), submitted a response on behalf of Ozgur Boru. However, it was not filed properly, and has not been made part of the record. 2 Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret submitted an untimely second response on September 17, 2007, which was not made part of the record. Nine other exporters/producers submitted proper responses to the Department's Q&V questionnaire: Borusan Mannesmann Boru, Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Guven Boru Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, Noksel Steel Pipe Co., MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San. Ve Tic. A.S, Ozborsan Boru San. Ve Tic. A.S., Ozdemir Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti., Toscelik Profil Ve Sac End. A.S, and Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. Two respondents—Guven Boru Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi (Guven Boru) and MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San. Ve Tic. A.S (MMZ)—accounted for the majority by volume of exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation
(POI)among those companies that responded to our quantity and value questionnaire. These two respondents accounted for 54 percent of the total exports reported by the responding companies. Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, we selected these two firms as mandatory respondents. *See* the September 7, 2007, Memorandum to Deputy Assistant Secretary Stephen J. Claeys, entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation on Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey(A-489-815), Respondent Selection” (Respondent Selection Memorandum). We issued the antidumping questionnaires to Guven Boru and MMZ on September 7, 2007. The Department received a section A response from MMZ on October 4, 2007. The Department received a section A response from Guven Boru on October 5, 2007. However, the public versions of the Guven Boru response were not properly filed or served upon parties and the business proprietary version was not served to parties in a timely manner. Furthermore, the sales data Guven Boru submitted with its November 7, 2007, sections B and C responses were not in a useable format. For a complete discussion of these and other deficiencies in Guven Boru's submissions, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available,” *infra.* Petitioners provided comments on MMZ's section A response on October 16, 2007. On October 23, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to MMZ regarding its section A response. On October 25, 2007, MMZ informed the Department that it was no longer participating in the antidumping proceeding. Period of Investigation The POI is April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. Scope of Investigation The merchandise that is the subject of this investigation is certain welded carbon quality 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 of 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 this investigation 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 this investigation is dispositive. Model Match In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, all products produced by the respondents covered by the description in the *Scope of Investigation* section, above, and sold in Turkey during the POI are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. On August 16, 2007, the Department asked all parties in this investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea, Mexico, and the People's Republic of China, for comments on the appropriate product characteristics for defining individual products. Parties in this investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Korea and Mexico were also invited to comment on the appropriate model matching methodology. *See* Letter from Richard Weible, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement 7, dated August 16, 2007. The Department received comments from the Mexican company Perfiles y Herrajes LM on August 23, 2007; from the Mexican companies Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V. and Prolamsa USA, Inc. on August 24, 2007, August 27, 2007, and September 4, 2007; from the Turkish company Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. on August 24, 2007; from the Chinese producer/exporter Zhangjiagang Zhongyuan Pipe-Making Co., Ltd.; and from the petitioners on August 24, 2007. The Department has not made any changes to its proposed characteristics and model matching methodology as a result of the comments submitted by parties. We would have relied on six criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: steel input type, whether metallic coated or not, whether painted or not, perimeter, wall thickness and shape. However, because we are basing the margins for the mandatory respondents upon adverse facts available, there was no need to match sales of respondents. Use of Facts Otherwise Available For the reasons discussed below, we determine the use of adverse facts available
(AFA)is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to all companies that failed to respond (or to respond adequately) to the Q&V Questionnaire, and for both mandatory respondents (MMZ and Guven Boru). As noted in the Supplementary Information section above, the former failed to provide adequate responses to the Department's Q&V questionnaire and to the Department's follow-up letter of August 16, 2007, while the mandatory respondents failed to cooperate in this investigation. Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e)of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 782(i), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Tariff Act provides that if the administering authority determines a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Tariff Act states further the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met:
(1)The information is submitted by the established deadline;
(2)the information can be verified;
(3)the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination;
(4)the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5)the information can be used without undue difficulties. In this case, the nine non-responding or improperly responding companies all failed to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and/or in the form or manner requested. Thus, for these companies in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Tariff Act, we have based the dumping margin on facts otherwise available. MMZ MMZ, one of the mandatory respondents, did not provide the information we requested necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination. Specifically, MMZ failed to provide a complete response to our questionnaire, thereby withholding, among other things, home-market and U.S. sales information that is necessary for reaching the applicable determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. On October 25, 2007, MMZ informed the Department that it was no longer participating in the antidumping proceeding. *See* Letter from MMZ, “Request for Withdrawl of MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San. Tic. A.S. (“MMZ”) in the Anti-Dumping Investigation of Light Walled Rectangular Pipes from Turkey,” dated October 25, 2007. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Tariff Act, we have based the dumping margin for MMZ on facts otherwise available. Guven Boru Guven Boru, the other mandatory respondent, failed to provide complete, timely, and properly filed responses to several of the Department's questionnaires. The Department received the initial section A response from Guven Boru on October 5, 2007. However, the public versions of the Guven Boru response were not properly filed or served upon parties and the business proprietary version was not served to parties in a timely manner. The public version submitted was not labeled “public version,” as required by 19 CFR 351.303. Also, Guven Boru served on the petitioners a public version which differed from the public version submitted to the Department, where the bracketed proprietary information was not redacted on the Department's versions. Further, petitioners indicated, and Guven Boru later confirmed, that the company did not serve a copy of the business proprietary version of this response to the petitioners under administrative protective order (APO), as required. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Mike Brown,” dated December 27, 2007. *See also* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone conversation and E-mail Correspondence with Kemal Tureyen of Guven Boru,” dated October 23, 2007, at Exhibit 1, page 3. Finally, Guven Boru filed a certificate of service with its business proprietary submissions which was inaccurate, because it indicated that copies of the business proprietary version of the response were served on the parties on the public service list. Because of improper labeling of proprietary information, the Department had petitioners return the October 5, 2007, submission on October, 15, 2007. On October 15, 2007, the Department contacted Mr. Kemal Tureyen of Guven Boru by electronic mail asking that Guven Boru re-submit the public version of its response and serve the business proprietary and public versions of the response on the petitioners and pointing out Guven Boru's filing and service obligations, specifically Guven Boru's obligation to serve business proprietary versions of documents to those parties who have access to such information under APO, including counsel for petitioners. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone conversation and E-mail Correspondence with Kemal Tureyen of Guven Boru,” dated October 23, 2007, at Exhibit 1, page 2. On October 18, 2007, the Department received Guven Boru's corrected public version of its section A response. In its response, Guven Boru reported it had no sales of the foreign like product in the home market, and would be reporting sales to its three largest third-country export markets instead. On October 19, 2007, Mr. Tureyen sent an e-mail to the case analyst claiming Guven Boru had sent both a business proprietary and public version of its section A response to the petitioners. *Id.* at page 4. In an October 23, 2007, e-mail, Mr. Tureyen explained the company had sent both a public and proprietary version of its section A response “by post” on October 16, 2007, or eleven days after the initial filing with the Department. *Id.* at page 5. However, because petitioners indicated they still had not received the response ( *see* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Michael Brown,” dated December 27, 2007), on October 23, 2007, the case analyst sent an e-mail to Mr. Tureyen suggesting Guven Boru re-send the business proprietary and public versions of its section A response to petitioners as quickly as possible. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone conversation and E-mail Correspondence with Kemal Tureyen of Guven Boru,” dated October 23, 2007, at page 5. On October 26, 2007, counsel for the petitioners indicated he had received the corrected public version of Guven Boru's section A response, but had not received the business proprietary version. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Michael Brown,” dated December 27, 2007. On October 30, 2007, counsel for petitioners informed the case analyst by telephone that petitioners had received the business proprietary version of Guven Boru's section A response, which was originally due to the Department October 5, 2007. *Id.* We received sections B and C responses from Guven Boru on November 7, 2007. However, Guven Boru's sales databases were not submitted in a useable format. On November 9, 2007, the case analyst sent Mr. Tureyen an e-mail asking him to confirm what versions of Guven Boru's section B and C questionnaire response had been served on the petitioners. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, dated November 9, 2007, at Exhibit 1, page 6. On November 12, 2007, in response to an e-mail from the case analyst, Guven Boru explained that it had sent a public version of the sections B and C response to petitioners. On November 13, 2007, the Department issued its first supplemental questionnaire regarding Guven Boru's section A response and its section B and C sales database. On November 19, 2007, in response to our first sections A, B, and C supplemental questionnaire, we received revised sections B and C databases from Guven Boru. On November 19, 2007, petitioners informed the Department by telephone that they had received a public version of Guven Boru's section B and C response, but no business proprietary version. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Mike Brown,” dated December 27, 2007. On November 26, 2007, petitioners again informed the Department by telephone that they had received one public version of Guven Boru's November 8, 2007 section B and C response, no business proprietary version, and no public or proprietary copies of the corrected section B and C databases submitted November 19, 2007. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes from Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Mike Brown,” dated December 27, 2007. On November 26, 2007, we set a letter to Guven Boru reminding the company of its obligation to comply with the Department's filing and service regulations. On November 27, 2007, Mr. Tureyen sent an e-mail to the case analyst explaining that Guven Boru had not sent business proprietary versions of the company's section B and C responses to the petitioners, and stated it was unable to serve the petitioners the original section B and C sales databases because company officials had deleted them. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the file, dated December 19, 2007, at exhibit 1, page 1. In doing so, Guven Boru had denied petitioners the opportunity to comment on the data contained in its original sales database. On November 28, 2007, we issued our second supplemental questionnaire to Guven Boru, which included questions regarding certain possible affiliations (our second section A supplemental questionnaire). On November 29, 2007, we set a letter to Guven Boru giving the company a deadline by which to bring itself into compliance with the Department's filing and service regulations and warning it that further untimely or improperly filed submissions would not be accepted. On December 3, 2007, we issued our third supplemental questionnaire to Guven Boru (our second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire). Also, on December 3, 2007, Guven Boru failed to respond in a timely fashion to the our first section A supplemental questionnaire. Guven Boru's response was received the next day, on December 4, 2007. In a telephone conversation on December 6, 2007, counsel for petitioners explained that petitioners had received a copy of the narrative portion of Guven Boru's business proprietary section B and C response and a copy of the November 19, 2007, section B and C sales database submission. *See* Memorandum from Tyler Weinhold to the File, “Antidumping Investigation of Light-Walled Rectangular Pipes and Tubes From Turkey, Telephone Conversations with Mr. Mike Brown,” dated December 27, 2007. Therefore, Guven Boru had denied petitioners the opportunity to comment on the proprietary version of its section B and C response until nearly one month after those documents were due to the Department. On December 12, 2007, we issued our fourth supplemental questionnaire to Guven Boru, regarding certain possible sales in the home market (our third section A supplemental questionnaire). Guven Boru failed to provide a timely response to our second section A supplemental questionnaire, which was due December 13, 2007. On December 13, 2007, Guven Boru also submitted a request for an extension for its response to our second section B and C supplemental questionnaire, which was due December 13, 2007. We denied this request for additional time. *See* letter to Guven Boru, dated December 21, 2007. On December 17, 2007, the petitioners submitted a sales-below cost allegation for Guven Boru. *See* Letter from Schagrin Associates, dated December 17, 2007. Also, on December 17, 2007, Guven Boru attempted to submit an untimely-filed response to our second section A supplemental questionnaire, which was due December 13, 2007. In addition, Guven Boru failed to file its response to the our second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire, which was due on December 17, 2007. On December 19, 2007, we received an untimely request for an extension for our second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire. Finally, on December 20, 2007, Guven Boru failed to respond to the December 12, 2007 section A supplemental questionnaire. On December 21, 2007, we sent a letter to Guven Boru, rejecting its response to the second section A supplemental questionnaire, which was due December 13, 2007, and its request for an extension for the our second sections B and C supplemental questionnaire because these documents were untimely filed. In that letter, we also informed Guven Boru that we would not accept any further submissions and would use facts otherwise available in making our preliminary determination. Guven Boru failed to respond in a timely manner to the our November 13, 2007, section A supplemental questionnaire and our second section A supplemental questionnaire and failed to respond entirely to the our December 3, 2007, sections B and C supplemental questionnaire and our December 12, 2007, section A supplemental questionnaire. Further, Guven Boru's untimely filings represented a continuance of a pattern of untimely and improperly filed submissions. Moreover, Guven Boru's failure on two occasions to timely serve petitioners with proprietary versions of its responses until weeks after those responses were due prevented the petitioners from meaningfully participating in this proceeding. Also, by its own admission, it destroyed its original sales databases prior to serving them on petitioners. Finally, Guven Boru's untimely responses prevented us from conducting a proper analysis within the statutorily imposed time limits of this investigation. For these reasons, in reaching our preliminary determination we have based the dumping margin for Guven Boru on facts otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Tariff Act. Non-Responding Companies As explained above, the Department did not receive a response to the Q&V questionnaire from Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Goktas Tube, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel Pipe Inc., or Yusan Industries, Ltd., and Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret and Ozgur Boru submitted untimely, improperly-filed, or incomplete responses. Although the Department provided all respondents, including those that did not respond (or did not respond adequately) to the Q&V questionnaire, with notice informing them of the consequences of their failure to respond adequately to the Q&V questionnaire in this case, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, these companies did not respond as requested. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and
(C)of the Tariff Act, we have based the dumping margin for Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Goktas Tube, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel Pipe Inc., or Yusan Industries, Ltd., and Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret and Ozgur Boru on facts otherwise available. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available According to section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. *See also Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,* 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil,* 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). It is the Department's practice to apply adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. *See, e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 69663, December 10, 2007. Furthermore, “affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.” *See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,* 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); *see also Nippon Steel Corp.* v. *United States,* 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). * See also, Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, * 72 FR 69663 (December 10, 2007). Although the Department provided all respondents, including those that did not respond (or did not respond adequately) to the Q&V questionnaire, with notice informing them of the consequences of their failure to respond adequately to the Q&V questionnaire in this case, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Tariff Act, these companies did not respond as requested. With respect to MMZ and Guven Boru, the former stated it would not continue to participate in the proceeding, and the latter failed to serve petitioners with proprietary versions of its questionnaire responses in a timely fashion, destroyed one sales database before providing it to petitioners, and failed to respond in a timely fashion to four of the Department's supplemental questionnaires. This constitutes a failure on the part of these companies to cooperate to the best of their ability to comply with a request for information by the Department within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. Because these companies did not provide the information requested, section 782(e) of the Tariff Act is not applicable. Based on the above, the Department has preliminarily determined that the companies that failed to respond adequately to the Q&V questionnaire and the two mandatory respondents (MMZ and Guven Boru) failed to cooperate to the best of their ability and, therefore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan,* 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total AFA where the respondent failed to respond to the antidumping questionnaire). Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. *See also* 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 829-831. It is the Department's practice to use the highest calculated rate from the petition in an investigation when a respondent fails to act to the best of its ability to provide the necessary information and there are no other respondents. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland,* 69 FR 77216 (December 27, 2004) (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland,* 70 FR 28279 (May 17, 2005)). Therefore, because an adverse inference is warranted, we have assigned to each uncooperative respondent the highest margin alleged in the petition, as referenced in the *Initiation Notice,* of 41.71 percent. *See Initiation Notice* at 40278. When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides that when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition) rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation, it must corroborate, to the extent practicable, information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See* SAA at 870. As stated in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews,* 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part,* 62 FR 11825, 11843 (March 13, 1997)), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and relevance of the information used. The Department's regulations state that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See* 19 CFR 351.308(d) and the SAA at 870. For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the Petition during our pre-initiation analysis and for purposes of this preliminary determination. *See Initiation Checklist* at pages 9 and 10. *See also Initiation Notice* at 40277. We examined evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition to determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. During our pre-initiation analysis we examined the key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to derive margins. During our pre-initiation analysis we also examined information from various independent sources provided either in the Petition or in supplements to the Petition that corroborates key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations used in the Petition to derive estimated margins. *Id.* The petitioners calculated export price
(EP)in two ways: by use of a price quote from a U.S. dealer and by use of the average unit values
(AUVs)for import data from the Bureau of the Census IM145 import statistics. When based on the price quote, the petitioners deducted an amount for international freight, and also a value of three percent of the U.S. price to cover inland freight from the U.S. port to the U. S. dealer, as well as the U.S. dealer's expenses and profit. *See* Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 4. The three percent figure is based on an affidavit from a U.S. producer of light-walled rectangular tubing, who stated that three percent is the standard mark-up in the industry. *See* Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 1. We then compared the U.S. price quote to the AUVs for this period and confirmed that the value of the U.S. price quote was consistent with the AUVs. The petitioners also calculated EP based on AUVs. In the Petition of June 27, 2007, the petitioners included figures from January—March of 2006 in their calculation of AUV. *See* Volume II of the Petition at Exhibit I-3. The Department requested that Petitioner recalculate AUVs to exclude the January—March 2006 import figures. Additionally, the Department requested that the Petitioner exclude HTSUS number 7306.69.50.00 from the calculation of AUVs, as this number does not include LWR merchandise that would be subject to the investigation. The petitioners corrected the calculation as requested by the Department. *See* Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at pages 5- 6, and at Exhibit 3. The petitioners did not make an adjustment for international freight because they calculated the AUV prices on the FAS value of the merchandise. *See* Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 3. U.S. official import statistics ( *e.g.* , AUVs from the Bureau of the Census IM145 import statistics) are sources that we consider reliable. *See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan,* 70 FR 48538, 48540 (August 18, 2005), (unchanged in *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Superalloy Degassed Chromium from Japan,* 70 FR 65886 (November 1, 2005)). Further, we obtained no other information that would make us question the reliability of the pricing information provided in the petition. Therefore, based on our examination of the aforementioned information, we consider the petitioner's calculation of net U.S. prices corroborated. The petitioners based normal value on two price quotes from each of two Turkish producers of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube. *See* Volume II of the Petition at page II-11 and Exhibit II-27 and Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 2. The petitioners obtained these prices by engaging a consultant, who hired a research firm with an agent in Turkey. *See* Volume II of the Petition at II-12, Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, and Memorandum to the File, “Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,” dated July 17, 2007. In one case, this research firm obtained price quotations directly from the manufacturer. *See* Memorandum to the File, “Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,” dated July 17, 2007. In another case, they were referred by the manufacturer to a distributor. *Id.* These price quotations identified specific products, terms of sales and payment terms. *See* Volume II of the Petition at II-12, Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition, and Memorandum to the File, “Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,” dated July 17, 2007. Where appropriate, the petitioners made a deduction for freight, selling expenses, discount, and profit. Based on our examination of the aforementioned, we consider the petitioner's calculation of normal value, based on price quotations, corroborated. Therefore, because we confirmed the accuracy and validity of the information underlying the derivation of margins in the Petition by examining source documents as well as publicly available information, we preliminarily determine the margins in the Petition are reliable for the purposes of this investigation. In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in *Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin as “best information available” (the predecessor to “facts available”) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. In *American Silicon Technologies* v. *United States,* 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1346 (CIT 2003), the court found the adverse facts-available rate bore a “rational relationship” to the respondent's “commercial practices,” and was, therefore, relevant. In the pre-initiation stage of this investigation, we confirmed the calculation of margins in the Petition ( *e.g., prices, expenses, adjustments, etc.* ) reflects the commercial practices of the particular industry during the period of investigation. *See* Memorandum to the File, “Telephone Call to Market Research Firm,” dated July 17, 2007. Further, no information has been presented in the investigation that calls into question the relevance of this information. As such, we preliminarily determine the highest margin in the Petition, which we determined during our pre-initiation analysis, was based on adequate and accurate information and which we have corroborated for purposes of this preliminary determination. Therefore, it is relevant as the adverse facts-available rate for the uncooperative respondents in this investigation. Similar to our position in *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 71 FR 53405 (September 11, 2006) (unchanged in *Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,* 72 FR 1982 (January 17, 2007)), because this is the first proceeding involving these companies, there are no probative alternatives. Accordingly, by using information that was corroborated in the pre-initiation stage of this investigation and preliminarily determining it to be relevant for the uncooperative respondents in this investigation, we have corroborated the adverse facts-available rate “to the extent practicable.” *See* section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, 19 CFR 351.308(d), and *NSK Ltd.* v. *United States,* 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1336 (CIT 2004) (stating, “pursuant to the ‘to the extent practicable’ language * * * the corroboration requirement itself is not mandatory when not feasible”). Therefore, we find that the estimated margin of 41.71 percent in the *Initiation Notice* has probative value. Consequently, with respect to MMZ, Guven Boru, and the other uncooperative respondents (Anadolu Boru, Ayata Metal Industry, Goktas Tube, Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret, Ozgur Boru, Ozmak Makina ve Elektrik Sanayi, Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor), Umran Steel Pipe Inc., and Yusan Industries, Ltd.), we have applied the margin rate of 41.71 percent, the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of initiation. *See Initiation Notice* at 40278. All-Others Rate Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-averaged dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or *de minimis* or are determined entirely under section 776 of the Tariff Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent practice under these circumstances has been to assign as the all-others rate the simple average of the margins in the petition. *See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Glycine from Japan,* 72 FR 67271, 67272 (November 28, 2007). *See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Malaysia,* 69 FR 34128, 34129 (June 18, 2004). Consistent with our practice we used the rates in the Petition that were considered in the Department's initiation to calculate a simple average to be assigned as the all-others rate. That simple average, 27.04 percent, is derived from the following petition rates: 36.43 percent, 29.08 percent, 19.67 percent, 15.28 percent, 41.71 percent, 30.08 percent, 24.31 percent, and 19.75 percent. *See* Volume II of the Supplement to the Petition dated July 6, 2007, at Exhibit 4. This 27.04 percent rate will be applied to the following seven responsive firms that were not selected as mandatory respondents: Borusan Mannesmann Boru, Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S., Noksel Steel Pipe Co., Ozborsan Boru San. Ve Tic. A.S., Ozdemir Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti., Toscelik Profil Ve Sac End. A.S, and Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S. Preliminary Determination We preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007: Producer/Exporter Weighted- average margin (percentage) Guven Boru Profil Sanayii ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi 41.71 MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San. ve Tic. A.S 41.71 Anadolu Boru 41.71 Ayata Metal Industry 41.71 Goktas Tube 41.71 Kalibre Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S 41.71 Kerim Celik Mamulleri Imalat ve Ticaret 41.71 Ozgur Boru 41.71 Ozmak Makina ve Elektrik Sanayi 41.71 Seamless Steel Tube and Pipe Co. (Celbor) 41.71 Umran Steel Pipe Inc. 41.71 Yusan Industries, Ltd. 41.71 Borusan Mannesmann Boru 27.04 Erbosan Erciyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S 27.04 Noksel Steel Pipe Co 27.04 Ozborsan Boru San. ve Tic. A.S 27.04 Ozdemir Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti 27.04 Toscelik Profil ve Sac End. A.S 27.04 Yucel Boru ve Profil Endustrisi A.S 27.04 All Others 27.04 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP)to suspend liquidation of all entries of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey that are 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 margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows:
(1)The rate for the firms listed above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination;
(2)if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise;
(3)the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 27.04 percent. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. Comission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Tariff Act, we have notified the Commission of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports of light-walled rectangular Pipe and tube from Turkey are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. Public Comment Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than fifty days after the date of publication of this notice. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs. *See* 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section 774 of the Tariff Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will be scheduled two days after the deadline for submitting rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone, the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled date. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 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 of the publication of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1)The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2)the number of participants; and
(3)a list of the issues to be discussed. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). At the hearing oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: January 23, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-1665 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 18, 2008, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the remand redetermination issued by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the CIT's remand order in the final results of the thirteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from the People's Republic of China. *See Ames True Temper* v. *United States,* Slip Op. 08-8 (CIT 2008) (“ *Ames II* ”). This case arises out of the Department's final results in the administrative review covering the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,* 70 FR 54897 (September 19, 2005) (“ *Final Results* ”). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in *Timken Co.* v. *United States,* 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the Department is notifying the public that *Ames II* is not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results.* EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-0413. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 31, 2007, the CIT directed the Department to reopen the record and obtain additional evidence regarding Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd.'s (“Huarong”) production of metal pallets. *See Ames True Temper* v. *United States,* 2007 Ct. Int'l Trade LEXIS 131, Slip Op. 2007-133 (CIT, 2007) (“ *Ames I* ”). Pursuant to the Court's remand instructions, we issued supplemental questionnaires on September 19, 2007, and October 19, 2007. Huarong responded to the questionnaires on October 17, 2007, and October 26, 2007, respectively. In the supplemental questionnaires the Department requested:
(a)Consumption ratios for all factors of production (“FOPs”) associated with the production of pallets used in packing and shipping heavy forged hand tools;
(b)information to select surrogate values for any unreported pallet making FOPs; and,
(c)supplier distances for any unreported pallet making FOPs. The Department released the *Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* (“ *Draft Redetermination* ”) to the petitioner, Ames True Temper (“Ames”), and Huarong for comment on November 16, 2007. No party submitted comments. On November 28, 2007, the Department filed its final results of redetermination pursuant to *Ames I* with the CIT. *See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand,* Court No. 05-00581, (November 28, 2007) (“ *Final Redetermination* ”), found at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/07-133.pdf.* In the remand redetermination, the Department determined that welding wire was consumed in Huarong's pallet making process and that welding wire should have been reported by Huarong as a FOP during the thirteenth review. The Department valued welding wire using publicly available Indian import statistics for February 2003-January 2004 from the *World Trade Atlas* (“ *WTA* ”). 1 Thus, the Department included the cost of welding wire in Huarong's NV, including freight costs associated with Huarong's purchases of the welding wire. On January 18, 2008, the CIT sustained all aspects of the remand redetermination made by the Department pursuant to the CIT's remand of the *Final Results.* 1 *WTA* is published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc., which is a secondary electronic source based upon the publication, *Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: Imports. See http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm.* In its decision in *Timken,* 893 F.2d at 341, the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. As a result of the Department's addition of the welding wire consumed in making steel pallets in the remand redetermination, the CIT's decision in this case on January 18, 2008, constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results.* This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken.* Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to revise the cash deposit rates covering the subject merchandise. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 24, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 08-404 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 10
Traces to 10 documents
CFR
- Period of investigation; requests for exclusions from countervailing duty orders based on investigations conducted on an aggregate basis.§ 351.204
- Comparison of normal value with export price (constructed export price).§ 351.414
- Calculation of normal value of merchandise from nonmarket economy countries.§ 351.408
- Time limits for submission of factual information.§ 351.301
- Disclosure of calculations and procedures for the correction of ministerial errors.§ 351.224
- Written argument.§ 351.309
- Hearings.§ 351.310
- Final determination.§ 351.210
- Filing, document identification, format, translation, service, and certification of documents.§ 351.303
- Determinations on the basis of the facts available.§ 351.308
5 references not yet in our index
- 117 F.3d 1401
- 337 F.3d 1373
- 273 F. Supp. 2d 1342
- 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312
- 893 F.2d 337
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Proposed collection; Comments requested
Cites 15 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources