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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-549-502]

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From

Thailand.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation,

Sawhill Tubular Division of Armco, Inc., American Tube Company, Inc.,

Laclede Steel Company, Sharon Tube Company, Wheatland Tube Company, and

Eagle Pipe Company, petitioners, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Thailand.

This review covers the following manufacturers/exporters of the subject

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

SAF Steel Pipe Export Company, and Pacific Pipe Company. The period of

review (POR) is March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995.

We have preliminarily determined that respondents sold subject

merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the differences

between the export price and NV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also

submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief

summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Rice or Jean Kemp, Office of

Agreements Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

1374 or (202) 482-4037, respectively.

APPLICABLE STATUTE: Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the

Act) by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are

to the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations

published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

an antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from

Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 7, 1995, the Department published a

notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order

covering the period March 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995 (60 FR

12540).

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1) (1995), petitioners

requested that we conduct a review of Saha Thai and Pacific Pipe Co. In

addition, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. and SAF Corporation

requested an administrative review of its sales. We published a notice

of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on April

14, 1995 (60 FR 19017). On November 7, 1995, the Department published

in the Federal Register its notice extending the deadline in this

review (60 FR 56142).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this administrative review are certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The subject

merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more, but not

exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly referred to in

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

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

classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,

7306.30.5085 and 7306.30.5090. Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description

of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified

information provided by Saha Thai and SAF, respondents, by using

standard verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the

manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the

public versions of the verification reports.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the

Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the home market during

the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining

appropriate product

[[Page 21160]]

comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical

merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared

U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product on the basis of the

characteristics listed in the Department's June 21, 1995 antidumping

questionnaire and additional specifications listed in our January 11,

1996 supplemental questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we

matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics

reported by the respondents and verified by the Department.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of pipe and tube by respondents to the

United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to

the normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export Price'' and

``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section

777A(d)(2), we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and

compared these to individual U.S. transactions.

Export Price

We used EP, in accordance with subsections 772 (a) and (c) of the

Act, because the subject merchandise was sold through an affiliated

export company (SAF), to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation and CEP was not otherwise warranted based

on the facts of record. Respondents claimed that most U.S. sales should

be considered constructed export price (CEP) because they were first

sold in the U.S. to affiliated distributors. However, although the

Department has preliminarily determined that Saha Thai and SAT are

affiliated, we disagree that Saha Thai/SAT is affiliated with the U.S.

distributors. For further information on this decision, please see the

memorandum from Edward C. Yang to Roland L. MacDonald dated April 29,

1996.

We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers

in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the

starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and

handling, and international freight. We added duty drawback to the

starting price.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of

sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,

we compared the combined volume of Saha Thai and SAT home market sales

of the foreign like product to the combined volume of their U.S. sales

of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act. Since respondents' aggregate volume of home market sales of

the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate

volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that

the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home market

sales.

We based NV on sales to unaffiliated customers in the home market.

Where appropriate, we deducted discounts, inland freight, and home

market packing. We added U.S. packing in accordance with section

773(a)(6).

We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in

the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

In accordance with the Department's practice, where the difference in

merchandise adjustment for any product comparison exceeded 20 percent,

we based normal value on CV.

Price to CV Comparisons

Where we compared CV to EP, we deducted from CV the weighted-

average home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-

average U.S. product-specific indirect selling expenses.

Cost of Production Analysis

Based on the fact that the Department had disregarded sales in the

previous review because they were made below the cost of production

(COP), the Department found reasonable grounds in this review, in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, to believe or

suspect that respondents made sales in the home market at prices below

the cost of producing the merchandise. As a result, the Department

initiated an investigation to determine whether the respondents made

home market sales during the POR at prices below their COP within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

Before making any fair value comparisons, we conducted the COP

analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the sum of respondents' cost of

materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts

for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A)

and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. We

verified the respondents' reported COP values.

B. Test of Home Market Prices

We used the respondents' weighted-average COP for the POR. We

compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales of the

foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in

order to determine whether these sales had been made at below-cost

prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and

whether they were at prices which permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time. On a product-specific basis, we compared the

COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges,

rebates, and direct selling expenses.

C. Results of COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of

respondents' sales of a given product were sold at prices less than the

COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because

we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial

quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a

given product during the POR were sold at prices less than the COP, we

disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined that the below-

cost sales were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial

quantities'' in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the

Act, and because we determined that the below-cost sales of the product

were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time where an individual sale price was below the

weighted-average COP of the product, as defined in section 773(b)(2)(D)

of the Act. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below

the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and calculated NV

based on CV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of respondents' cost of materials, fabrication,

selling, general, and administrative expenses, U.S. packing costs,

interest expenses and home market profit as reported in the sales

databases. In accordance with sections 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and

profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in

connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in

the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

For four models sold in the United States, we were unable to access

values

[[Page 21161]]

for home market indirect selling expenses and profit in the data base.

For these missing values, we assigned values of the average of home

market selling expenses and profit reported for other home market

products. Otherwise, we relied on the respondents' reported CV amounts,

as verified by the Department. For selling expenses, we used the

weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary results, in accordance with section

773(A)(a), we made currency conversions based on the official exchange

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars.

Non-Shipper

Pacific Pipe stated that it did not have shipments during the POR,

and we confirmed this with the United States Customs Service.

Therefore, we are treating Pacific Pipe as a non-shipper for this

review.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of USP and NV, we preliminarily

determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

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

Manufacturer/Exporter Period Margin

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

Saha Thai............................... 3/1/94- 2/28/95 1.07%

Pacific Pipe Co......................... 3/1/94-2/28/95 (1)

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

(1) No sales during review period.

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may

request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the

first business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or other written

comments from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30

days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to

written comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this

notice. The Department will publish the final results of this

administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis

of issues raised in any such comments.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentage

stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon the

publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for

all shipments of welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be that

established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously

reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit

rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent

period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.67

percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV

investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

These preliminary results of review are published pursuant to

section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-11634 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P