[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6125]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-702]
Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings From
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration/
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 6, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe and tube
fittings (SSPFs) from Japan (59 FR 740). The review covers one
manufacturer/exporter, Benkan Corporation (Benkan), and the period
March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of comments received, the
final results remain unchanged from the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Genovese or Michael Heaney,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
5254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 29, 1993, the petitioner, Flowline Division of Markovitz
Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline), requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSPFs from Japan
for Benkan. The Department initiated the review on May 6, 1993 (58 FR
26960), covering the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.
On January 6, 1994, the Department published the preliminary results of
review of the antidumping duty order on SSPFs from Japan (59 FR 740).
The Department has now completed this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review include certain stainless steel
butt-weld pipe and tube fittings. These fittings are used in piping
systems for chemical plants, pharmaceutical plants, food processing
facilities, waste treatment facilities, semiconductor equipment
applications, nuclear power plants and other areas.
This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedules (HTS) item number 7307.23.0000. The HTS item number is
provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written product
description remains dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received comments from the petitioner,
Flowline.
Comment 1: Flowline argues that Benkan's date of sale methodology,
which is based on the invoice date, does not provide an accurate,
reasonable method for determining the date that price and quantity are
set. Petitioner contends that since prices are agreed to over the
telephone prior to the order being placed, the date of sale should be
the date that a customer places an order (i.e., the date that the order
receipt slip is generated), rather than the invoice date, which is also
the shipment date.
Department's Position: We disagree with Flowline. The Department
has used the invoice date provided by Benkan as the date of sale
because the invoice represents the first document which systematically
records agreement as to prices and quantities. Order receipt slips are
neither systematically generated nor comprehensive enough for these
purposes. Thus, the invoice date represents an accurate, reasonable,
verifiable, consistent methodology to determine the date of sale.
Moreover, this is consistent with the position that we have taken
in past cases where determination of the date of sale methodology was
at issue (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Rolling
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al. (AFBs) (58 FR 39729,
39783; July 26, 1993)).
Comment 2: Flowline asserts that Benkan should be required to
provide level-of-trade (LOT) information since Benkan sells to
different categories of customers in the home market and in the U.S.
market. Flowline refers to the Department's Policy Bulletin (92/1, July
29, 1992) to argue that Benkan has failed to demonstrate that no
correlation exists between prices and LOT. Additionally, Flowline
claims that Benkan has only shown that there is no significant
correlation between selling expenses and LOT, as opposed to no
correlation between prices and LOT.
Department's Position: The Department disagrees with Flowline.
There is no evidence on the record to suggest that Benkan's prices vary
based on the customer category. Moreover, Flowline has misinterpreted
Department policy by improperly assuming that Benkan has the burden of
demonstrating that prices are not affected by LOT; Flowline has
provided no evidence to contradict Benkan's assertion that prices are
not affected by LOT.
Final Results of Review
Based on our analysis of the comments received we have not changed
the final results from those presented in the preliminary results of
review. Accordingly, we have determined that a final margin of 8.06
percent exists for Benkan for the period March 1, 1992 through February
28, 1993.
The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between United States price and foreign market value may vary from the
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
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 publication date of these
final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) the cash deposit rate for Benkan will be 8.06 percent; (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this
review but covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the rate published in the most recent final results or determination
for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific
rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, earlier
reviews, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise in these final results of review, earlier reviews, or the
original investigation, whichever is the most recent; and (4) the ``all
others'' rate will be 49.31 percent, as explained below.
On May 25, 1993, the CIT, in Floral Trade Council v. United States,
Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, Slip
Op. 93-83, decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for
a company it can only be changed through an administrative review. The
Department has determined that in order to implement these decisions,
it is appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from
the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of
clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed
by antidumping duty orders. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate for any
future entries from all other manufacturers or exporters, who are not
covered in this or prior administrative reviews and who are unrelated
to the reviewed firms or any previously reviewed firm, will be the
``all others'' rate established in the original LTFB investigation,
which is 49.31 percent.
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 final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written 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.
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: March 9, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-6125 Filed 3-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
