[Federal Register: January 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1509-1511]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ja06-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-485-805)
Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line,
and Pressure Pipe from Romania: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 2006.
SUMMARY: In response to requests by Duferco Steel Inc. (Duferco), an
importer of subject merchandise, and United States Steel Corporation
(the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and
pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania. The period of review (POR)
is August 1, 2004, through July 31, 2005.
The respondent, S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub), informed the
Department that it would not be participating in the review.
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the application of adverse
facts available is warranted with respect to Silcotub.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins at (202) 482-1392 or
John Holman at (202) 482-3683, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty
order on seamless pipe from Romania. See Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line,
and Pressure Pipe From Romania, 65 FR 48963 (August 10, 2000) (Amended
Final).
On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 44085. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(3), on August 30, 2005, Duferco
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of
Silcotub. On August 31, 2005, the petitioner requested a review of
Silcotub. On September 28, 2005, the Department published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
seamless pipe from Romania covering the period August 1, 2004, through
July 31, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631.
On September 26, 2005, the Department issued its questionnaire\1\
to Silcotub. Because we had reason to believe or suspect that Silcotub
made sales at prices below the cost of production during the review, we
initiated a sales-below-cost inquiry in order to determine whether
Silcotub made sales during the POR at below-cost prices.\2\ See, e.g.,
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order
in Part: Certain Pasta From Italy, 66 FR 34414, 34415 (June 28, 2001).
Silcotub did not respond by the deadline of November 2, 2005. In a
November 28, 2005, letter, Silcotub informed the Department that it was
declining to participate in the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under review that it sells, and the manner in which
it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests
a complete listing of all home-market sales or, if the home market
is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market
(this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market-economy
cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under review.
\2\ In the 2002-03 administrative review, the Department
disregarded Silcotub's home-market sales that failed the cost test.
See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part: Certain
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and
Pressure Pipe From Romania, 70 FR 7237 (February 11, 2005) (2002-03
Final Results). Accordingly, the Department initiated a sales-below-
cost inquiry in the 2003-04 administrative review. Silcotub withdrew
its participation from that review without responding to the
Department's cost-of-production questionnaire. See Certain Small
Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe
from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 70 FR
41206 (July 18, 2005) (2003-04 Final Results). As a result, the
Department used adverse facts available in determining the margin
for Silcotub in that review. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are seamless carbon and alloy
(other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and
redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106,
ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API
5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below,
regardless of application. The scope of the order also includes all
products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and
meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of
specification. Specifically included within the scope of the order are
seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches
(114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness,
manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain
end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or
surface finish.
The seamless pipes subject to the order are currently classifiable
under
[[Page 1510]]
the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00,
7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24,
7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60,
7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and
7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to
the scope of this order is dispositive. For further information on
merchandise subject to this order, see Certain Small Diameter Carbon
and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from Romania:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Preliminary Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 70 FR 24520 (May 10,
2005).
Use of Facts Available
In accordance with section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), we preliminarily determine that the use of facts
available as the basis for the weighted-average dumping margin is
appropriate for Silcotub. Silcotub did not submit a response to our
antidumping duty questionnaire. Consequently, we find that it has
withheld ``information that has been requested by the administering
authority'' under section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act and we must use facts
otherwise available to assign a margin to Silcotub.
In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we are making an
adverse inference in our application of the facts available. This is
appropriate because Silcotub did not provide responses to our
questionnaire, which are necessary for us to complete our margin
calculations. Therefore, we find that Silcotub has not acted to the
best of its ability in providing us with relevant information which is
under its control.
In selecting an adverse facts available rate, the Department's
practice has been to assign respondents that fail to cooperate with the
Department the highest margin determined for any party in the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review of
the proceeding. See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,1411
(Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, we have preliminarily assigned Silcotub an
adverse facts available rate of 15.15 percent, which is the LTFV
weighted-average margin we calculated for Silcotub during the original
investigation. See Amended Final.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, to the extent practicable,
the Department shall corroborate secondary information from independent
sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-
316, at 870 (1994) (SAA), clarifies that the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise is ``secondary information'' and
states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information
used has probative value. See SAA at 870.
As explained 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), in order to corroborate secondary information, the
Department will examine, to the extent practicable, the reliability and
relevance of the information used. Unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources from which the Department can derive calculated dumping
margins. The only source for margins is administrative determinations.
Thus, with respect to an administrative review, if the Department
chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from a prior
segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the
reliability of the margin for that time period. We also find that this
rate, calculated from a prior segment of the proceeding and used in the
prior administrative review,\3\ is relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ After withdrawing its participation from the 2003-04
administrative review, Silcotub was assigned, as adverse facts
available, the LTFV weighted-average rate of 15.15 percent. See
2003-04 Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data upon which the Department relied in calculating the 15.15
rate in the LTFV investigation was that of Silcotub and Sota
Communication Company. During the period of investigation, Silcotub
produced the product which Sota Communication Company sold to the
United States. Therefore, we examined for the LTFV investigation
Silcotub's factor-of-production information in our calculation of the
15.15 percent rate. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure
Pipe from Romania, 65 FR 5594 (February 4, 2000).
Furthermore, there is no information on the record that calls into
question the validity of this rate. Therefore, we find that this rate
is corroborated to the extent practicable. Also, we find that this rate
is sufficiently high as to reasonably ensure that Silcotub does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate. Accordingly, we
determine that the rate of 15.15 percent, the highest weighted-average
margin determined for any firm during any segment of this proceeding,
is in accordance with the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
dumping margin for S.C. Silcotub S.A. for the period August 1, 2004,
through July 31, 2005, is 15.15 percent.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held approximately 37 days after the publication of this notice. Issues
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30
days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are
requested to submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue,
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.
Parties are also requested to submit such arguments, and public
versions thereof, with an electronic version on a diskette.
Upon publication of the final results of this review, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because we are
applying adverse facts available to all exports of subject merchandise
produced or exported by Silcotub, we will instruct CBP to assess the
final percentage margin against the entered customs values on all
applicable entries during the period of review.
Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of seamless pipe from Romania entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash-deposit rate for Silcotub will be the rate established in the
final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not
[[Page 1511]]
covered by this review, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered by this review, a prior review, or the
original LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted
by the Department, the cash-deposit rate will be 13.06 percent, the
all-others rate established in the 2002-03 administrative review. See
2002-03 Final Results, 70 FR at 7239. These cash-deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 4, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-103 Filed 1-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S