02-25445. Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On March 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) from India (67 FR 10358). The review covers flanges manufactured by Isibars Ltd. (Isibars), Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (Panchmahal), Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Ltd. (Patheja), and Viraj Forgings Ltd. (Viraj). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Killiam or Robert James, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: [phone] or [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review, and we received briefs and rebuttals from the petitioners, the Coalition Against Indian Flanges, and Viraj.

Scope of Review

The products under review are certain forged stainless steel flanges from India, 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 HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review.

Use of Facts Available

As in the preliminary results, and for the reasons stated therein, we have continued to assign to Panchmahal and Patheja the rate of 210%, based on adverse facts available.

Analysis of Comments Received

The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Important Administration, Group III, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Record Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the International Trade Administration's Web site at http://www.ia.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our verification and analysis of the comments received, we have changed our approach to the margin calculation for Viraj. See the Decision Memo.

Final Results of the Review

We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exists for the period February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001:

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India

Weighted-average margin	Producer/manufacturer/ exporter (percent)
Isibars	0
Panchmahal	210.00
Patheja	210.00
Viraj	0

Assessment Rates

The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period.

In addition, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) For the companies reviewed, the cash deposit rates will be the rates listed above, (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent segment of the proceeding in which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the all others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also 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 in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also 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). Timely 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.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214.

Dated: September 5, 2002.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix—Issues in Decision Memorandum

Petitioners

1. Viraj affiliation with KOP;

2. KOP sales and expenses data;

3. KOP's U.S. selling expenses;

4. Equity infusion;

5. Duty drawback;

6. Billet costs;

7. Duties and taxes in costs;

8. Labor and variable overhead;

9. G&A expense ratio;

10. Interest expense ratio;

11. Direct selling expenses;

Viraj

12. CEP Prices;

13. Production quantities;

14. Weight-averaged prices

15. Margin Calculations

16. Foreign Unit Price

17. Aberrant margin

18. Prices per piece vs. per kilogram

19. Imputed costs in CEP profit