[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5501-5503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2626]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by one manufacturer/exporter,
Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (Panchmahal), the Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting a new shipper administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges
(flanges) from India. The review covers sales during the period
February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.
We preliminarily determine that Panchmahal sold subject merchandise
at not less than normal value during the period of review (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: February 3, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam, Alain Letort, or John
Kugelman, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III--Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2704 (Killiam), -4243 (Letort), or -0649
(Kugelman).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute
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 references
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997). Although
the Department's new regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351 (62 FR
27296--May 19, 1997), do not govern these
[[Page 5502]]
proceedings, citations to those regulations are provided, where
appropriate, to explain current departmental practice.
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on certain
stainless steel flanges from India on February 9, 1994 (59 FR 5994).
Panchmahal, by letters dated February 24, March 18, and April 1, 1997,
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)). Panchmahal provided the shipment date at the time of
its request for review.
On May 2, 1997, the Department published a notice of initiation of
this new shipper review of Panchmahal (62 FR 24088). 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, Panchmahal, and
the period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
stainless steel flanges which respondent sold in the home market during
the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product
on the basis of the characteristics listed in the Department's
antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics
reported by the respondent.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by the respondent
to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared
export price (EP) to normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-
average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S.
transactions.
Export Price
We calculated the price of United States sales based on EP, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States
prior to the date of importation and the constructed export price
methodology was not indicated by the facts of record.
We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers
in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the
starting price for movement expenses, which were comprised of
international freight and marine insurance; we also added duty drawback
to the starting price.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the
home market in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary
course of trade.
We made adjustments to NV for differences in credit expenses. We
reduced NV by home market packing costs section under 773(a)(6)(B) and
increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or,
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
In its questionnaire responses, Panchmahal stated that there were
no differences in its selling activities by customer categories within
each market. In order to confirm independently the absence of separate
levels of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we
examined Panchmahal's
[[Page 5503]]
questionnaire responses for indications that Panchmahal's functions as
a seller differed qualitatively or quantitatively among customer
categories. Where possible, we further examined whether each selling
function was performed on a substantial portion of sales.
Panchmahal sold to end-users in the U.S. market. In the home
market, Panchmahal sold to local distributors and end-users. Panchmahal
performed essentially the same selling functions for sales to all its
home-market customers, as well as to U.S. customers. Thus, our analysis
of the questionnaire response leads us to conclude that sales within or
between each market are not made at different levels of trade.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all sales in the home market
and the U.S. market were made at the same level of trade. Therefore, we
have not made a level of trade adjustment because all price comparisons
are at the same level of trade and an adjustment pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(A) is not appropriate.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in
order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily
rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's
practice, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily
exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g.,
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918--March 6,
1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the
past 40 business days. When we determined a fluctuation existed, we
substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From India
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panchmahal................................................. 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of publication of this notice and any interested party 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 working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the
date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a
notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not
later than 90 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Cash Deposit
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate
for the respondent will be the rate established in the final results of
this administrative review (except that no deposit will be required for
firms with zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins lower than 0.5
percent); (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, a prior review, or the original
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 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 these or any prior
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate
established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
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.
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: January 26, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-2626 Filed 2-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
