[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8925-8926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4926]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-820]
Certain Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings and Glands From
the People's Republic of China; Termination of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of termination of antidumping duty new shipper
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 26, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 18568) the notice of
initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order
on Certain Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings and Glands (CDIW)
from the People's Republic of China (PRC). We are terminating this
review based on 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as
[[Page 8926]]
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the Act) as a result of
evidence on the record which indicates that the respondent in these
proceedings failed to cooperate by omitting from submissions certified
as being complete and accurate, information material to determining its
eligibility for new shipper status.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul M. Stolz, Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4474.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 1, 1996, Beijing M Star Pipe Corporation (BMSP), an
interested party, requested a new shipper administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on CDIW for the period August 1, 1995 through
February 29, 1996, pursuant to 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act defines new shippers as exporters and producers
who demonstrate in their request for review that they: (1) did not
export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI; and
(2) are not affiliated with any exporter or producer who did export the
subject merchandise to the United States during that period, including
those not examined during the investigation.
In its request for review, BMSP certified the following as complete
and accurate: (1) that BMSP, under its current or former name, did not
export CDIW from the PRC to the United States during the original
period of investigation (POI), February 1, 1992 through July 31, 1992;
(2) that BMSP's only affiliation with another PRC company or enterprise
is with Beijing Cheng Hong Foundry, which did not export CDIW during
the POI; and (3) that BMSP had no affiliations with any person,
corporation or enterprise which exported CDIW from the PRC during the
POI. Based on these certifications, on April 26, 1996, the Department
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 18568) the notice of
initiation of that administrative review.
On December 3, 1996, counsel for the domestic industry placed
evidence on the record indicating that BMSP is affiliated with persons
and/or entities which shipped subject merchandise to the United States
during the period of investigation (POI) and argued that, based on this
evidence, BMSP is not eligible for review as a new shipper. In
particular, the domestic industry provided information showing that
Beijing Metals and Minerals Import and Export Corporation, Beijing,
China (BMMC) exported subject merchandise to the United States during
the POI and that certain senior company officials are presently
employed by both BMSP and BMMC.
Respondent does not dispute these facts. In fact, respondent admits
in its January 24, 1997 submission that shared management between BMSP
and BMMC does exist. Significantly, in a footnote to its submission,
BMSP states that ``BMSP acknowledges that it previously misstated the
lack of shared managers or officers with any other Chinese exporter.''
This statement is in direct contradiction to BMSP's certified
questionnaire response of May 28, 1996 in which it states ``[n]either
does BMSP have any relationship with any other producers or exporters
of the subject merchandise, including by way of sharing managers or
officers.'' In short, BMSP has now apprised the Department of, and the
record clearly shows, a material omission or inaccuracy in BMSP's
earlier certified submissions.
At issue here is BMSP's eligibility for a new shipper review. This
is a new procedure designed to allow new shippers an opportunity for a
review ahead of the normal review cycle. The Department is cognizant of
the potential for abuse of this procedure and seeks to ensure that it
is only used where appropriate. Certifications are critical to the
Department's ability to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate
new shipper requests. The Department must rely on the accuracy of the
parties' representations in deciding to initiate this type of review.
Moreover, the Department attaches great importance to receiving
accurate and complete submissions and requires parties to certify these
submissions to ensure accuracy and completeness.
The domestic industry argues that the Department should apply a
margin to BMSP based on facts available because BMSP failed to disclose
that BMSP and BMMC share common management. Section 776 of the Act
authorizes the department to apply facts available, inter alia, when a
respondent withholds information which significantly impedes a
proceeding. In this case, BMSP provided certified submissions that were
clearly inaccurate--it stated that BMSP had no relationship with any
PRC entity which exported CDIW during the POI, including by way of
sharing managers of officers, when in fact BMSP had knowledge that BMSP
shares high-level managers with BMMC. Plainly, BMSP's inaccurate
representation and omission of highly material information regarding
the issue of eligibility for the new shipper review calls into question
the reliability of BMSP's total response in this proceeding and, in
these circumstances, warrants the use of adverse facts available.
Section 776(b) provides that when a party to the proceeding has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that
is adverse. Given the importance of receiving accurate and complete
information in proceedings we conduct, we have determined to apply
adverse facts available pursuant to 775(b) by finding BMSP ineligible
for a new shipper review.
This notice is published in accordance with section 353.22(h)(9)(i)
of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.22.(h)(9)(i)).
Dated: February 14, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-4926 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
