[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31502]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 22, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-605]
Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan; Preliminary
Results of Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the U.S. Butt-Weld Fittings
Committee, petitioner in this proceeding, the Department of Commerce
(the Department) has conducted an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from
Taiwan. The review covers four manufacturers/exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States for the period December 1, 1992,
through November 30, 1993.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference
between the United States price (USP) and FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlo G. Cavagna or Richard Rimlinger,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202)
482-4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 17, 1986, the Department published in the Federal
Register (51 FR 45152) the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-
weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. On November 26, 1993, the Department
published (58 FR 62327) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the period
December 1, 1992, through November 30, 1993. We received a timely
request from the petitioner, the U.S. Butt-Weld Fittings Committee, to
review C.M. Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (CM), Rigid Industries
Co., Ltd. (Rigid), Chup Hsin Enterprises (Chup Hsin), and Gei Bey
Corporation (Gei Bey). The period of review (POR) covers December 1,
1992, through November 30, 1993, and the administrative review was
initiated on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2593). The Department is
conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of carbon steel butt-
weld type pipe fittings, other than couplings, under 14 inches in
inside diameter, whether finished or unfinished, that have been formed
in the shape of elbows, tees, reducers, and caps, and if forged, have
been advanced after forging. These advancements may include one or more
of the following: coining, heat treatment, shot blasting, grinding, die
stamping, or painting.
Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings are currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7307.93.3000. The
HTS subheading is provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope
of the product coverage.
Best Information Available
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have preliminarily
determined that the use of best information otherwise available (BIA)
is appropriate for certain firms. The Department's regulations provide
that we may take into account whether a party refuses to provide
information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). For purposes of these reviews, we have
used the most adverse BIA--generally, the highest rate for any company
for this same class or kind of merchandise from this or any prior
segment of the proceeding--whenever a company refused to cooperate with
the Department or otherwise significantly impeded the proceeding. When
a company substantially cooperated with our requests for information,
but failed to provide all the information requested in a timely manner
or in the form requested, we used as BIA the higher of (1) the highest
rate (including the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm
for the same class or kind of merchandise from the same country from
either the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a prior
administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this
review for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise from the
same country. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, et.
al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR
31692, 31704 (July 11, 1991); see also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v.
United States 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Because Chup Hsin and Gei Bey failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we have used the highest rate ever found in this
proceeding to establish their margins. This rate is 87.30 percent,
which was also used for these two firms in the LTFV investigation when
they failed to respond in that stage of the proceeding.
United States Price
In calculating USP, the Department treated respondents' sales as
purchase price (PP) transactions, as defined in section 772 of the Act,
because the merchandise was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to
importation.
PP was based on c.i.f. U.S. port prices to unrelated purchasers in,
or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions from PP,
as appropriate, for domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling
charges, assorted port and trade development taxes in Taiwan, ocean
freight, marine insurance, imputed credit expenses, assorted bank and
interest charges, and commissions.
We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as
outlined in Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994).
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of carbon
steel butt-weld pipe fittings in the home market to serve as a viable
basis for calculating FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales
of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings to the volume of third country
sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. CM and Rigid
had viable home markets with respect to sales of carbon steel butt-weld
pipe fittings.
Because 20 percent of Rigid's foreign market sales were determined
to have been made below the cost of production (COP) during the last
administrative review (56 FR 20187, 20188), we concluded that
reasonable grounds existed to believe or suspect that home market sales
during the POR were made at prices below COP. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b) of the Act, the Department initiated a COP investigation
of Rigid for purposes of this administrative review. See Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from
Eight Countries; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 59 FR 9463, 9467 (February 28, 1994). Furthermore, based on an
allegation by petitioner, we also determined that reasonable grounds
existed to believe or suspect that sales below cost of carbon steel
butt-weld pipe fittings had been made by CM. Thus, we initiated a COP
investigation with respect to CM.
We performed a model-specific COP test, in which we examined
whether each home market sale was priced below the merchandise's COP.
The Department defines the COP as the sum of direct material, direct
labor, variable and fixed factory overhead, general expenses, and
packing. For each model, we compared this sum to the reported home
market unit price, net of price adjustments and movement expenses. In
accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we also examined whether the
home market sales of each model were made at prices below their COP in
substantial quantities over an extended period of time, and whether
such sales were made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
For each model where less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home
market sales during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we
included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each
model where 10 percent or more, but not more than 90 percent, of the
home market sales during the POR were priced below the merchandise's
COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales
which were priced below the merchandise's COP, provided that these
below-cost sales were made over an extended period of time. For each
model where 90 percent or more of the home market sales during the POR
were priced below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that model from
our calculation of FMV and used the constructed value (CV) of those
models as described below. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Eight Countries;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 59 FR
9463, 9467 (February 28, 1994).
In order to determine if sales below cost had been made over an
extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which
below-cost sales occurred for each model to the number of months during
the POR in which each model was sold. If a model was sold in fewer than
three months, we did not exclude the below-cost sales unless there were
below-cost sales in each month of sale. If a model was sold in three or
more months, we did not exclude the below-cost sales unless there were
below-cost sales in at least three months during the POR. See
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof from Nine Countries; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 58 FR 39729, 39751 (July 26, 1993). Based on
this test, we found it necessary to disregard certain home market sales
made by CM and Rigid.
We used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were
insufficient sales of the comparison home-market model at or above the
COP. We calculated CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, as
the sum of the cost of manufacturing of the product sold in the United
States, home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses, home market profit, and U.S. packing. For home market SG&A
expenses, we used the larger of the actual SG&A expenses reported by
the respondents or 10 percent of the COM, the statutory minimum for
foreign SG&A expenses. For home market profit, we used the larger of
the actual profit reported by the respondents or the statutory minimum
of eight percent of the sum of COM and SG&A expenses.
For those models that had sufficient above-cost sales, we
calculated FMV based on delivered prices to unrelated customers in the
home market. In calculating FMV, we made adjustments, where
appropriate, for inland freight and imputed credit expenses. We
adjusted for the Taiwan consumption tax in accordance with our decision
in Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994). We deducted home
market packing costs from the home market price and added U.S. packing
costs to the FMV. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56, we also made, where
applicable, adjustments for differences in the physical characteristics
of merchandise. Furthermore, where commissions were paid on U.S. sales
and not paid on home market sales, we allowed an offset to FMV
amounting to the lesser of the weighted-average home market indirect
selling expenses or the U.S. commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b) of the regulations.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminary determine that the
following margins exist for the period December 1, 1992, through
November 30, 1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chup Hsin Enterprises...................................... 87.30
C.M. Pipe Fittings......................................... 12.24
Gei Bey Corporation........................................ 87.30
Rigid Industries........................................... 2.53
All Others................................................. 49.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon completion of the final results of this review, the Department
shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between USP
and FMV may vary from the percentages stated above. Upon completion of
the review the Department will issue appraisement instructions with
respect to each exporter directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
reviewed companies will be those rates 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, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in this review 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
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rates will be 49.46%, the
all other rate established in the LTFV investigation (51 FR 37772).
These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice, and may request a hearing within 10
days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held as early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days
after the date of publication or the first work day thereafter. Case
briefs or other written comments from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. 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.
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 subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: December 7, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-31502 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
