Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-502]

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from

Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, domestic

producers of standard pipe products, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from

Thailand. The review period is March 1, 1992, through February 28,

1993. This review involves one manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd.

(Saha Thai). As a result of the review, we have preliminarily

determined that dumping margins exist with respect to this

manufacturer/exporter.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 22, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Yacura or Zev Primor, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register

the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 12, 1993, the

Department published a notice in the Federal Register notifying

interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative

review of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from

Thailand (57 FR 13583). On March 30, 1993, the domestic producers

(Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular Division of Armco,

Inc., American Tube Company, Inc., Laclede Steel Company, Sharon Tube

Company, Wheatland Tube Company, and Eagle Pipe Company) requested, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) of the Department's regulations, that

we conduct an administrative review for the period March 1, 1992,

through February 28, 1993. We published a notice of initiation of the

antidumping duty administrative review on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960).

The Department is now conducting a review for this period in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this administrative review are shipments of

certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The

subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but

not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to

in the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural tubing,'' are

hereinafter designated as ``pipe and tube.'' The merchandise is

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,

7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. The item numbers are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes. The written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

The review covers shipments made by Saha Thai from Thailand to the

United States during the period of review March 1, 1992, through

February 28, 1993 (POR).

United States Price

In calculating U.S. price (USP), the Department used purchase

price, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise

was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation. Purchase

price was based on the packed FOB or C&F price to unrelated purchasers

in the United States. The review included all of Saha Thai's U.S. sales

that entered the United States during the POR. We made deductions from

the unit price, where applicable, for ocean freight, bank charges,

foreign inland freight, foreign inland insurance, and customs clearing

expenses (brokerage). We made an addition to USP for duty drawback.

Additionally, we adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice

as outlined in Siliconmanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17,

1994.

No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of pipe

and tube in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating

foreign market value (FMV), we compared the volume of home market sales

to the volume of third-country sales, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Saha Thai had sufficient home market sales of

the subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, we based FMV on Saha

Thai's sales in the home market.

We did not include home market sales of pipe and tube made to the

specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM

pipe) in our FMV calculation because we determined that such sales were

outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 U.S.C. 1677(15) and

1677b(a)(1). Rather, we included only sales of pipe and tube made to

British Standard specifications (BS pipe). In determining that Saha

Thai's sales of ASTM pipe in the home market were outside the ordinary

course of trade, we did not rely on one factor taken in isolation, but

rather considered all the circumstances particular to the sales in

question. In reviewing the evidence for this review, we based our

decision upon (1) the different standards and product uses of ASTM

pipes and BS pipes; and (2) the comparative volume of sales and number

of buyers of ASTM pipes and BS pipes in the home market during the POR.

Saha Thai indicated that the ASTM pipes sold in the home market

during the POR were produced on the basis of special orders or special

projects in which the entire project was supplied with ASTM standard

pipes. In addition, ASTM pipes and BS pipes cannot be coupled together.

Therefore, ASTM pipe cannot be used in most pipe systems in Thailand

and cannot be used to replace most existing pipe systems in Thailand.

Finally, sales of ASTM pipe constituted a small volume of total Saha

Thai's sales of pipe and tube in the home market, and the customers

purchasing ASTM pipe in the home market were limited primarily to new,

stand-alone government projects.

Accordingly, we determined that sales of ASTM pipe in the home

market were outside the ordinary course of trade, and therefore did not

use these sales in our calculation of FMV.

Based on findings in the 1988-89 review that home market sales of

the subject merchandise were made by Saha Thai at prices below the cost

of production (COP), the Department conducted a cost investigation in

this review. In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR

353.51 of the Department's regulations, we examined whether home market

sales were made below cost and in substantial quantities over an

extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices

which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of

time in the normal course of trade. We calculated Saha Thai's COP as

the sum of all reported materials costs, labor expenses, factory

overhead, and general and selling expenses for the three types of pipe

and tube that were sold in the home market during the POR (galvanized

plain-end, black plain-end, and galvanized threaded-and-coupled). We

compared COP to home market prices net of discounts, foreign inland

freight, and an adjusted business tax, or value-added tax, depending on

the time of sale.

For each model where less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home

market sales during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we

included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each

model where 10 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, of the home

market sales during the POR were priced below the merchandise's COP, we

excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales which were

below the merchandise's COP, provided that these below-cost sales were

made over an extended period of time. For each model where 90 percent

or more of the home market sales during the POR were priced below the

COP and were made over an extended period of time, we disregarded all

sales of that model from our calculation of FMV and used the

constructed value (CV) of those models as described below.

To determine whether sales below cost had been made over an

extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which

sales below cost occurred for a particular type of pipe and tube to the

number of months in which that type was sold. If the type was sold in

fewer than three months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless

there were below-cost sales of that type in each month sold. If a type

was sold in three or more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales

unless there were sales below cost in at least three of the months in

which the type was sold.

Since Saha Thai has not submitted any information indicating that

any of its sales below cost were at prices which would have permitted

``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the

normal course of trade,'' as required by section 773(b)(2) of the Act,

we are unable to conclude that the costs of production of such sales

have been recovered within a reasonable period. As a result, we

disregarded below-cost sales made over an extended period of time.

Using the remaining sales, the Department calculated FMV on a

monthly weighted-average basis. Home market prices were based on the

price to unrelated purchasers. Where applicable, we made adjustments

for transportation discounts, foreign inland freight, packing expenses,

and business tax, or value-added tax, depending on the date of sale. We

also made adjustments to FMV for differences in the physical

characteristics of the merchandise, packing, credit expenses, and

warranty expenses.

We used CV as FMV to compare to those U.S. sales for which there

were insufficient home market sales at or above the COP. Pursuant to

section 773(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.50(a) of the Department's

regulations, CV consisted of the sum of materials, overhead, labor,

U.S. packing, general and administrative expenses, and profit for each

of the four types of pipe and tube sold in the United States during the

POR (black plain-end, galvanized plain-end, galvanized threaded-and-

coupled, and black threaded-and-coupled). Since Saha Thai's actual

selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and actual profits

were greater than the statutory minima for SG&A and profit as provided

in section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act, we used the SG&A and profit

reported by Saha Thai. We adjusted CV for selling, credit, and packing

expenses.

Preliminary Results

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping

margin to be:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd......... 3/1/92-2/28/93 5.83

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

Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of

publication of this notice and any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will

be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written

comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final

results of this administrative review, which will include the results

of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs or comments.

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated

above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for

all shipments of certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Thailand, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on

or after the publication date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1)

The cash deposit rate for Saha Thai will be that established in the

final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in

the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or previous

reviews, the cash deposit will continue to be the rate published in the

final determination or the last final results for which the

manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be

that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final

results of this review, a previous review, or the original

investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is

a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate

will be the ``all others rate'' from the LTFV investigation.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and

Federal-Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States,

822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that once an ``all others'' rate

is established for a company, it can only be changed through an

administrative review. The Department has determined that, in order to

implement these decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the original

``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation (or that rate as

amended for correction for clerical errors or as a result of

litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty orders for the

purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews.

Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty order,

the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 15.67

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the Department's final

determination of sales at LTFV (51 FR 3384, January 27, 1986).

There is a countervailing duty order on certain circular welded

carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (50 FR 32751, August 15,

1985). In accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act, entries

subject to both antidumping duties and countervailing duties will not

be assessed antidumping duties on the portion of the margin

attributable to export subsidies. Because the amount of countervailing

duties to be imposed on entries during the POR has yet to be

determined, we cannot at this time make the appropriate adjustment.

However, to ensure that the appropriate adjustment is made, upon

issuing our final results of the administrative review, we will

instruct U.S. Customs not to assess antidumping duties on the margin

attributable to export subsidies for the POR.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply

with this requirement could result in the Secretary of the Department's

presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: November 14, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-28828 Filed 11-21-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P