[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51261-51263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25112]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-533-809]
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary
Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of new shipper antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51262]]
SUMMARY: In response to a request by one manufacturer/exporter, Viraj
Forgings, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a
new shipper administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain forged stainless steel flanges from India (flanges). The period
of review (POR) is March 1, 1995 through August 31, 1995. We have
preliminarily determined that Viraj sold subject merchandise at not
less than normal value (NV) during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2704, or 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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 Round 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).
Background
By letters dated August 31 and September 25, 1995, Viraj requested
a new shipper review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and
section 353.22(h) of the Department's interim regulations, which govern
determinations of antidumping duties for new shippers. These provisions
state that, among other requirements, a producer or exporter requesting
a new shipper review must include with its request the date on which
the merchandise was first entered or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption, or, if it cannot certify as to the date of first entry,
the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the
United States (interim regulations, section 353.22(h)(2)(i)). Because
the shipment had not yet occurred, Viraj was unable to provide the
shipment date at the time of its request for review, but did certify
that the shipment would take place prior to any possible verification.
Based on the information which Viraj provided in its request we
determined that the requirements cited above were adequately fulfilled.
Viraj later provided the shipment date, October 30, 1995, in its
response.
On October 30, 1995, the Department initiated this new shipper
review of Viraj (60 FR 55241). The Department is now conducting this
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act and section 353.22 of
its interim regulations.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless
steel flanges both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to
specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316,
and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are
weld neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for
threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/
butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a
machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of
the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches;
however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in
the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are
manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this
order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and
7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written description of the scope of this order remains
dispositive.
The review covers one Indian manufacturer/exporter, Viraj, and the
period March 1, 1995 through August 31, 1995.
Export Price (EP)
We calculated the EP based on the price from Viraj to an
unaffiliated party since the sale was made prior to importation into
the United States, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses, which were
comprised of customs brokerage and handling expenses, home market
inland freight, international freight, and insurance. No other
adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value (NV)
A. Viability
Viraj had no domestic sales of flanges during the POR. Therefore,
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we used South Korea
as an appropriate third country market for comparison, because it was
the only third country market in which Viraj sold subject merchandise
during the POR, and because it met the requirements set forth in
773(a)(1)(C).
B. Model Match
We first searched for the third-country model identical in physical
characteristics with each U.S. model. When there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise, we searched for the
third-country model which is most like or most similar in
characteristics with each U.S. model. To perform the model match, we
first searched for the most similar third-country model with regard to
alloy. If there were several third-country models with identical
alloys, we then searched among the models with identical alloys for the
most similar third-country model with regard to size. We continued this
process with regard to type and standard. If, as a result of this
analysis, several third-country models were deemed equally similar, we
chose the third-country model which, when compared to the U.S. model,
had the lowest difference in variable cost of manufacturing (difmer),
provided the difmer did not exceed 20 percent of the total cost of
manufacturing of the U.S. model.
C. Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department
will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as
the U.S. sales. To implement this principle in this review, we
requested and examined information on the selling activities associated
with each channel of distribution in each of Viraj's markets; since
there were no differences in such selling activities in either market,
and since all sales in both markets were at a single LOT, we compared
sales at this sole LOT.
D. Constructed Value (CV)
For those U.S. models where no foreign like product was found with
a difmer of less than 20 percent, we used
[[Page 51263]]
CV as the basis of NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on Viraj's cost of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the subject merchandise, selling, general and administrative
expenses (SG&A) incurred in connection with the production and sale of
the foreign like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the costs of
materials, fabrication, and G&A as reported in the CV portion of
Viraj's questionnaire response.
We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales
portion of Viraj's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses
and profit on the information reported in the third-country sales
portion of Viraj's questionnaire response.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
For price-to-price comparisons, we based NV on the prices at which
the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the third-
country market to an unaffiliated party, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and at the same level of
trade as the EP, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Act. Viraj made all third-country and EP sales of subject merchandise
at the same level of trade.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of
individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales
of the foreign like product. We made adjustments, where applicable, for
expenses incident to placing the foreign like product in condition
packed ready for shipment to the place of delivery to the purchaser, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We calculated NV
based on FOB-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers, and
made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses. We
increased third-country price by U.S. packing costs in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. Prices were reported net of value-
added taxes (VAT) and, therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary.
We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where appropriate, for
differences in credit expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or
allowed.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of CEP and NV, we preliminarily
determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viraj..................................... 03/01/95-8/31/95 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 34 days after the date of publication, or the
first workday thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 20 days after the date of publication.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed not later than 27 days after the date of publication. Parties who
submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. The Department will issue the final results of the new
shipper administrative review, including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, within 90 days of
issuance of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. The
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, upon completion of this review, the posting of a bond
or security in lieu of a cash deposit, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and section 353.22(h)(4) of the
Department's interim regulations, will no longer be permitted and,
should the final results yield a margin of dumping, a cash deposit will
be required for each entry of the merchandise. The following deposit
requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of
this new shipper antidumping duty administrative review for all
shipments of flanges from India manufactured by Viraj, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit
rate for the reviewed company will be that established in the final
results of this new shipper administrative review; (2) for exporters
not covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the
original less- than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 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, previous reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the
most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 162.14 percent, the all others rate established in the
LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994, February 9, 1994).
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.
This new shipper administrative review and notice are in accordance
with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19
CFR 353.22(h).
Dated: September 23, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25112 Filed 9-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
