83 FR 33919 - Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 138 (July 18, 2018)

The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that manufacturers/exporters of welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea sold welded line pipe at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), May 22, 2015, through November 30, 2016.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33919-33921]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-876]


Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that 
manufacturers/exporters of welded line pipe from the Republic of Korea 
sold welded line pipe at less than normal value during the period of 
review (POR), May 22, 2015, through November 30, 2016.

DATES: Applicable July 18, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Ross Belliveau, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 
482-4952, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    This review covers 24 producers and/or exporters. Commerce selected 
two companies, Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) and SeAH Steel 
Company (SeAH), for individual examination. The producers and/or 
exporters not selected for individual examination are listed in the 
``Final Results of the Review'' section of this notice.
    On January 9, 2018, Commerce published the Preliminary Results.\1\ 
On February 23, 2018, we postponed the final results by 60 days, until 
July 11, 2018.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Welded Line Pipe from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 83 FR 1023 
(January 9, 2018) (Preliminary Results).
    \2\ See Memorandum, ``Welded Line Pipe from Korea from the 
Republic of Korea: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of 2015-
2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,'' dated February 23, 
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 23, 2018, we received case briefs from Hyundai Steel, 
SeAH, Husteel Co. Ltd. (Husteel), NEXTEEL Co., Ltd., and Maverick Tube 
Corporation (Maverick).\3\ On April 2, 2018, we received rebuttal 
briefs from Hyundai Steel, SeAH, Husteel, and Maverick.\4\ On June 27, 
2018, Maverick and SeAH submitted comments in response to factual 
information Commerce placed on the record on June 25, 2018.\5\ On July 
2, 2018, Maverick

[[Page 33920]]

submitted information rebutting SeAH's submission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Hyundai Steel's Case Brief, ``Case Brief of Hyundai 
Steel Company,'' dated March 23, 2018; SeAH's Case Brief, ``Case 
Brief of SeAH Steel Corporation,'' dated March 23, 2018; Husteel's 
Case Brief, ``Case Brief of Husteel Co., Ltd.,'' dated March 23, 
2018; NEXTEEL's letter, ``Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea: NEXTEEL's Letter in Support of Respondents' Case Briefs,'' 
dated March 23, 2018; and Maverick's Case Brief, ``Welded Line Pipe 
from the Republic of Korea: Case Brief,'' dated March 23, 2018 
(Maverick Case Brief). Maverick resubmitted certain pages of its 
case brief to reflect the public disclosure of certain information 
previously treated as business proprietary. See Maverick's letter, 
``Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Resubmission of 
Selected Pages in Case Brief,'' dated April 25, 2018.
    \4\ See Hyundai Steel's Rebuttal Brief, ``Rebuttal Brief of 
Hyundai Steel Company,'' dated April 2, 2018; SeAH's Rebuttal Brief, 
``Rebuttal Brief of SeAH Steel Corporation,'' dated April 2, 2018; 
Husteel's Rebuttal Brief, ``Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea. Case No. A-580-876: Rebuttal Brief,'' dated April 2, 2018; 
and Maverick's Rebuttal Brief, ``Rebuttal Brief of Maverick Tube 
Corporation,'' dated April 2, 2018. Hyundai Steel resubmitted 
certain pages of its case brief to reflect the public disclosure of 
certain information previously treated as business proprietary. See 
Hyundai Steel's letter, ``Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea: Resubmission of Certain Pages of Hyundai Steel's Rebuttal 
Brief,'' dated April 25, 2018.
    \5\ See Maverick's Letter, ``Welded Line Pipe from the Republic 
of Korea: Response to Factual Information Placed on the Record by 
the Department on June 25,'' dated June 27, 2018. We rejected SeAH's 
June 27, 2018 letter, which contained untimely-filed written 
argument. See Commerce Letter re: 2015-2016 Administrative Review of 
Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea, dated June 28, 2018. 
However, upon further consideration, we authorized SeAH to resubmit 
its June 27, 2018 submission; we also authorized parties to submit 
rebuttal comments to SeAH's written arguments. See Commerce Letter 
re: 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Welded Line 
Pipe from the Republic of Korea, dated June 29, 2018. SeAH 
resubmitted its rejected filing on June 29, 2018. See SeAH's letter, 
``Administrative Review of the Antidumping Order on Welded Line Pipe 
from Korea--Response to New Factual Information,'' dated June 29, 
2018.
    \6\ See Maverick's Letter, ``Welded Line Pipe from the Republic 
of Korea: Rebuttal Comments to SeAH's written argument,'' dated July 
2, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is welded line pipe.\7\ The 
product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 7305.11.1030, 
7305.11.1060, 7305.11.5000, 7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060, 7305.12.5000, 
7305.19.1030, 7305.19.5000, 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 
and 7306.19.5150. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for 
convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description 
remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a complete description of the scope of the order, see 
Preliminary Results and accompanying Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the IDM.\8\ Interested parties 
can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file 
electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). 
ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and 
is also available to all interested parties in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B8024, of the main Department of Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the IDM can be accessed directly at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed IDM and the 
electronic version of the IDM are identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Memorandum, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Results of the 2015-2016 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Welded Line Pipe from Korea,'' (dated 
concurrently with these results) (IDM), which is hereby adopted by 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from 
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain 
changes to the preliminary weighted-average margin calculations for 
Hyundai Steel and SeAH.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See accompanying IDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Results of the Review

    We are assigning the following weighted-average dumping margins to 
the firms listed below for the period May 22, 2015, through November 
30, 2016:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As discussed in Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of 
Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 
61366 (October 13, 2015), and accompanying IDM at 1, Hyundai HYSCO 
merged with Hyundai Steel subsequent to the period of investigation 
and Hyundai HYSCO no longer exists. Accordingly, our examination of 
Hyundai Steel includes entries made by Hyundai HYSCO prior to the 
date of the merger.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Exporter/producer                         dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel Company/Hyundai HYSCO \10\...................        18.77
SeAH Steel Company.........................................        17.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This rate is based on the actual weighted-average margin 
using the publicly-ranged data calculated for those companies 
selected for individual review. Because we cannot apply our normal 
methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to requests 
to protect business proprietary information, we find this rate to be 
the best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin determined for 
the mandatory respondents. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 
France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and 
Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 
2010); see also Memorandum, ``Calculation of the Review-Specific 
Average Rate for the Final Results,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Exporter/producer                         dumping
                                                                margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AJU BESTEEL CO., Ltd.......................................        18.30
Daewoo International Corporation...........................        18.30
Dong Yang Steel Pipe.......................................        18.30
Dongbu Incheon Steel Co....................................        18.30
Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd......................................        18.30
Dongkuk Steel Mill.........................................        18.30
EEW Korea Co, Ltd..........................................        18.30
HISTEEL Co., Ltd...........................................        18.30
Husteel Co., Ltd...........................................        18.30
Keonwood Metals Co., Ltd...................................        18.30
Kolon Global Corp..........................................        18.30
Korea Cast Iron Pipe Ind. Co., Ltd.........................        18.30
Miju Steel MFG Co., Ltd....................................        18.30
MSTEEL Co., Ltd............................................        18.30
NEXTEEL Co., Ltd...........................................        18.30
Poongsan Valinox (Valtimet Division).......................        18.30
POSCO......................................................        18.30
Sam Kang M&T Co., Ltd......................................        18.30
Sin Sung Metal Co., Ltd....................................        18.30
Soon-Hong Trading Company..................................        18.30
Steel Flower Co., Ltd......................................        18.30
TGS Pipe...................................................        18.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend to 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).

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of 
this review.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where Hyundai Steel and SeAH 
reported the entered value of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-
specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the 
total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. Where 
Hyundai Steel did not report entered value, we calculated the entered 
value in order to calculate the assessment rate. Where either the 
respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis 
within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific 
rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the 
appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
will assign an assessment rate based on the average \12\ of the cash 
deposit rates calculated for Hyundai Steel and SeAH. The final results 
of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping 
duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this 
review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where 
applicable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This rate was calculated as discussed in footnote 11, 
above.
    \13\ See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after 
publication of the final results of this administrative review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of

[[Page 33921]]

this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above 
will be that established in the final results of this review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within 
the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit 
rate will be zero; (2) for previously investigated companies not 
participating in this review, the cash deposit will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment 
of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent segment 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate 
for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 4.38 
percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.\14\ 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Korea and the 
Republic of Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 75056, 75057 
(December 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix

List of Topics Discussed in the IDM

I. Summary
II. Background
III. Margin Calculations
IV. Discussion of the Issues
    General Issues:
    Comment 1: Existence of a Particular Market Situation (PMS)
    Comment 2: Additional PMS Adjustments
    Comment 3: Allegations of Improper Political Influence in 
Determining the PMS
    Comment 4: Differential Pricing
    Comment 5: Reimbursement of Antidumping Duties
    Hyundai Steel-Specific Issues:
    Comment 6: Collapsing Hyundai RB with Hyundai Steel
    Comment 7: Date of Sale for Hyundai Steel's U.S. Sales
    Comment 8: Reporting of Hyundai Steel's Downstream Sales
    Comment 9: Assignment of Costs for Hyundai Steel's Non-Prime 
Pipe
    Comment 10: Hyundai Steel's Foreign Inland Freight Expenses
    Comment 11: Calculation Error for Hyundai Steel in the 
Preliminary Results
    SeAH-Specific Issues:
    Comment 12: SeAH's Third Country Comparison Market Viability
    Comment 13: Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset for SeAH
V. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2018-15327 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P