[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32070]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-503]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Iron Construction Castings From Canada
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Municipal Castings Fair Trade
Council and its individually-named members (petitioner), the Department
of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from Canada.
The review covers 11 manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States during the period March 1, 1992,
through February 28, 1993. For these preliminary results, we applied
best information available (BIA) for 10 of the manufacturers/exporters.
The review indicates the existence of dumping margins during the
period.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lisa Raisner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482-3518.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 5, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register
(51 FR 17220) the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings
from Canada. The petitioner requested in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(a) that we conduct an administrative review. We published the
notice of initiation on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960). The Department has
now conducted that administrative review in accordance with section 751
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain iron
construction castings from Canada, limited to manhole covers, rings,
and frames, catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames
used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water, and
sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050 and to
valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase
water, gas, or other valves, or water and gas meters, classifiable as
light castings under HTS item numbers 8306.29.0000 and 8310.00.0000.
The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes
only. The written description remains dispositive.
This review covers sales of certain Canadian iron construction
castings by Associated Foundry Ltd., Bibby Foundry Ltd., Bibby
Waterworks Inc., Dobney Foundry Ltd., Fonderie Bibby St. Croix, LaPerle
Foundry Division (LaPerle), McCoy Foundry Company, Penticton Foundry
Ltd., Titan Foundry Ltd., Titan Supply Ltd., and Trojan Industries,
Inc., during the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.
Analysis
We received only one questionnaire response, and that was from
LaPerle. Based on our analysis of this response, we have determined
that LaPerle is related to other respondents in this review. LaPerle
and its related entities meet all five criteria, in addition to
ownership, that the Department considers in determining whether to
collapse related parties, as laid out in Certain Granite Products for
Spain, 53 FR 24335, 1988; Certain Granite Products for Italy 53 FR
27187, 1988; Steel Wheels from Brazil, 54 FR 8780, 1989; Cellular
Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan, 54 FR 48011, 1989; and
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,
and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR 37099
(July 9, 1993). The five criteria, in addition to ownership, are as
follows:
Interlocking boards of directors;
Similar production processes, facilities or equipment so
as to facilitate shifting of production between facilities;
Do not operate as separate and distinct entities;
Share of marketing and sales information or offices; and
Involvement in the pricing or production decisions of the
other entity.
In conducting our analysis of related parties in this review, we
issued two supplemental questionnaires and granted extensions for
several of the responses. In spite of this, LaPerle did not provide us
with enough information to adequately support its position as an
independent entity. In addition, it did not consolidate all information
for itself, including information for its U.S. affiliate(s) and related
home market or third country firms whose information would be used in
this review, as outlined in our questionnaire. Therefore, we have
determined that LaPerle significantly impeded the proceedings. LaPerle
was deemed uncooperative and, in accordance with section 776(c) of the
Tariff Act, we applied BIA to LaPerle and its related parties.
Best Information Available
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we have used
BIA in cases where a party refused or was unable to produce information
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise
significantly impeded these proceedings. The Department generally uses
a two-tiered approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative
respondents or respondents who substantially impede the proceedings
(first tier), the Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate
for any company from the original investigation or prior administrative
review or (2) the highest rate found in the current review for any
company. For respondents which attempt to cooperate (second tier), the
Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to
the firm for the subject merchandise or (2) the highest calculated rate
in the current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings (Other
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58
FR 39729, July 26, 1993). For parties refusing to respond or parties
who substantially impeded the administrative review, the first-tier BIA
rate we applied in these preliminary results is 9.9 percent, which is
the highest of the rates found for any firm in the original
investigation (see Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Amendment to
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Amendment to
Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 34110, September 25, 1986).
For more information on these BIA applications to the above
companies, see the analysis memorandum.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that margins
exist for the period March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993, as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Foundry Ltd.............................. 9.9
Bibby Foundry Ltd................................... 9.9
Bibby Waterworks Inc................................ 9.9
Dobney Foundry Ltd.................................. 9.9
Fonderie Bibby St. Croix............................ 9.9
LaPerle Foundry, Inc................................ 9.9
McCoy Foundry Company............................... \1\7.5
Penticton Foundry Ltd............................... 9.9
Titan Foundry Ltd................................... 9.9
Titan Supply Ltd.................................... 9.9
Trojan Industries, Inc.............................. 9.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments during the period; since there was no prior review of
this company, we assigned the all other rate from the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation.
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and 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 written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no 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 including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the
Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective,
upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative
review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada that
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(1)
of the Tariff Act:
(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be their company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review or the original 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; 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 7.5 percent,
which is the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV investigation,
as discussed below.
On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral
Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul
Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-
83, 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 ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders.
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's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR
353.22(c).
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 93-32070 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
