[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6046-6048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2998]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-502]
Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From
India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes
from India. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Rajinder
Pipes Ltd. The period of review is May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998.
We have preliminarily determined that respondent's margin should be
based on total adverse facts available. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the
selected adverse facts-available rate.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Tabash at (202) 482-5047 or
Robin Gray at (202) 482-4023, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The 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 of Commere's (the
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).
Case History
On June 29, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register
(63 FR 35188) the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes from India. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, we
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of this
antidumping duty order for the period May 1, 1997, through April 30,
1998. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Rajinder Pipes Ltd.
(Rajinder). The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.
On September 17, 1998, the petitioners alleged that Rajinder made
home-market sales of subject merchandise at prices below the cost of
production (COP). On October 19, 1998, we concluded that petitioners'
allegation provided us with reasonable grounds to believe or suspect
that Rajinder made below-cost sales in the home market within the
meaning of section 773(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we initiated a
COP investigation of Rajinder's home-market sales. On
[[Page 6047]]
October 21, 1998, we instructed Rajinder to respond to section D of the
original questionnaire, which requests cost information for the period
currently under review. Despite numerous extensions, Rajinder did not
provide the requested cost information.
Scope of Review
The products covered by this review include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside
diameter of 0.372 inches or more but not more than 406.4 millimeters
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end,
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes
are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be called
structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes
and tubes are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam,
natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air-conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and
mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection
of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.
The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those
types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe
applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical
description outlined above are included in the scope of this order,
except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.
Imports of the products covered by this review are currently
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule
subheadings: 61032, 61049, 7306.30.10, and 7306.30.50. Although, the
HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
Department's written description of the scope of this proceeding
remains dispositive.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Because Rajinder has not provided the requested cost information
and has not provided record evidence substantiating its reasons for not
responding to our questionnaire, Rajinder has precluded us from
conducting an analysis to determine whether its comparison-market
(India) sales prices were below their respective COP in substantial
quantities and over an extended period of time. Accordingly, we believe
that we must resort to total facts available.
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
fails to provide information requested by the Department by the
deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner
requested, the Department shall use the facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination under this title. In this review,
as described below, Rajinder failed to provide a response to our COP
questionnaire by the established deadline.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not
decline to consider whether the information submitted by the respondent
that is already on the record is usable. The information that Rajinder
failed to provide would have been the first comprehensive cost
information to be used in the Department's cost investigation. Thus,
the information currently on the record is so incomplete that it cannot
serve as a reliable basis for reaching preliminary results (see
Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (January 7, 1997)). Therefore, in
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308 (a), we
must use facts otherwise available.
In selecting facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act
authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department
finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. In the
instant review, Rajinder submitted five extension requests in response
to the original deadline issued for submission of its section D
questionnaire response. The reasons cited for the extension requests
changed over time. Initially, the company cited several reasons for not
submitting its section D response including preparation of year-end
reports, problems with the telephone lines, and insufficient staff. In
the last two extension requests, Rajinder cited a claim of labor unrest
which Rajinder failed to substantiate. Even in light of these
extensions, Rajinder ultimately failed to submit the relevant cost
information for the record of this review. Therefore, we have
determined that Rajinder has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with our request for information for this
review. Consequently, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the
Department may use adverse inferences when selecting from among the
facts otherwise available.
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the margin
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static
Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
The Department will also consider the extent to which a party may
benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See
Roller Chain Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results
and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR
69,472, 60477 (November 10, 1997), and Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53820-21 (October 16, 1997).
In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to
induce Rajinder's cooperation, we have assigned to Rajinder as adverse
facts available a rate of 87.39 percent, the highest rate calculated
for any respondent for any segment of this proceeding. This rate was
calculated for the 88/89 administrative review of this order. Although
Rajinder asked that we use old cost data as facts available for this
review, because we do not have any information concerning Rajinder's
current costs, we cannot determine if its old cost data would be
sufficiently adverse for use as facts available. Therefore, we have not
used it.
Section 776(c) of the Act directs the Department to corroborate, to
the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available.
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for
calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is an
administrative determination. Thus, in an administrative review, if the
Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin from that time
period. See, e.g., Elemental Sulphur from Canada: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR at 971 (January 7,
1997), and Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof from
[[Page 6048]]
France, et al, 62 FR 2801 (January 15, 1997).
As to the relevance of the margin used for adverse facts available,
the Department stated in Tapered Roller Bearings from Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 47454
(September 9, 1997), that it will consider information reasonably at
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a
margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department
will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See
also, Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 49567 (September 26, 1995). We have
determined that there is no evidence which would indicate that the rate
is irrelevant or inappropriate as an adverse facts available rate for
Rajinder in the instant review. Therefore, we have applied, as total
adverse facts available, the 87.39 percent margin from the 1988/89
administrative review.
For more detailed information on the use, selection, and
corroboration of facts available, please see the January 28, 1999,
decision memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland, which
is available in the Central Records Unit, Import Administration, B-099,
Main Commerce Building, Washington, DC, 20230.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the
weighted-average dumping margin (in percent) for the period May 1,
1997, through April 30, 1998, to be as follows.
Company
Rajinder Pipes Ltd.--87.39
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective
case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this
notice.
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic
version included. The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review subsequently, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing. The
Department will issue final results of this review within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the reviewed
company will be the rate 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, 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) the cash-
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to
be 7.08 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the final
determination of sales at LTFV, as explained in the 1995/96 new shipper
review of this order. See Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel Pipes
and Tubes From India; Final Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 47632, 47644 (September 10, 1997).
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 reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2998 Filed 2-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
