[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14073-14075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7632]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-533-809]
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty 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 one respondent, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges
(flanges) from India. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of
the subject merchandise to the United States for the period February 9,
1994 through January 31, 1995.
We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made
below the normal value (NV). 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 the NV. Interested parties are
invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit
arguments 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: March 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202) 482-5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 9, 1994, the Department published in the Federal
Register (59
[[Page 14074]]
FR 5994) the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel
flanges from India. On January 12, 1995, the Department published in
the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of this antidumping duty order for the period
of February 9, 1994 through January 31, 1995 (60 FR 6524). We received
a timely request for review from the respondent, Akai Impex, Ltd.
(Akai). On February 15, 1995, the Department initiated a review of Akai
(60 FR 8629). The period of review (POR) is February 9, 1994 through
January 31, 1995.
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.
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 with 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 subheading 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, Akai, and the
period February 9, 1994 through January 31, 1995.
United States Price (USP)
In calculating USP for Akai, the Department treated respondent's
sales as export price (EP), as defined in section 772(a) of the Act,
because the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated U.S.
purchasers prior to the date of importation.
We calculated EP based on packed, delivered, duty-paid prices to
unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made deductions from
the gross unit price, where appropriate, for inland freight-plant/
warehouse to port of exit, brokerage and handling, international
freight, and U.S. customs duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)
of the Act. We added to the gross unit price packing costs for shipment
to the United States, where applicable, pursuant to section
772(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value (NV)
A. Viability
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared Akai's volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because Akai's
aggregate volume of home market sales was less than five percent of its
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we
determined that the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold
in the exporting country is insufficient to permit a proper comparison
with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B), we chose Canada as
the most appropriate third country market for comparison.
B. Model Match
We first searched for the third country model which is identical in
characteristics with each U.S. model. When there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise, we searched for the
third country model which is most like or most similar in
characteristics with each U.S. model. To perform the model match, we
first searched for the most similar third country model with regard to
alloy. If there were several third country models with identical alloy,
we then searched among the models with identical alloy for the most
similar third country model with regard to size. We continued this
process with regard to type and standard. If, as a result of this
analysis, several third country models were deemed equally similar, we
chose the third country model which, when compared to the U.S. model,
had the lowest difference in variable cost of manufacturing (difmer),
provided the difmer did not exceed 20 percent of the total cost of
manufacturing of the U.S. model.
For those U.S. models where no foreign like product was found with
a difmer of less than 20 percent, we resorted to CV as the basis of NV,
in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
C. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on Akai's cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing
the subject merchandise, selling, general and administrative expense
(SG&A) and profit incurred and realized in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product, and U.S. packing
costs. We used the costs of materials, fabrication, and G&A as reported
in the CV portion of Akai's questionnaire response.
We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales
portion of Akai's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses and
profit on the information reported in the third country sales portion
of Akai's questionnaire response. See Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349 (January 19,
1996). For SG&A expenses and actual profit, we used the average of
actual amounts incurred and realized by Akai, in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country, in accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.
D. Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those price-to-price comparisons where we did not resort to CV,
we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like products were first
sold for consumption in the third country market to an unrelated party,
in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade
and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP,
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Akai made all
third country and EP sales of subject merchandise to the same level of
trade. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs
of individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of
sales of the foreign like product. We made adjustments, where
applicable, for expenses incident to placing the foreign like product
in condition packed ready
[[Page 14075]]
for shipment to the place of delivery to the purchaser, and for third
country credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of
the Act. We increased third country price by U.S. packing costs in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and reduced it by third
country packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Act. Prices were reported net of value-added taxes (VAT) and,
therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary. In accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, we increased NV by adding U.S. credit
expense. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of the Review.
As a result of this review, we preliminary determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akai Impex, Ltd................. 2/09/94-1/31/95............ 11.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. 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 workday thereafter. Case briefs and/or written comments from
interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the
date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments,
limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed
not later than 37 days after the date of publication. 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. The Department will issue the final results of the
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
in any such written comments or at hearing, within 180 days of issuance
of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping dumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews
for all shipments of Flanges from India 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 Akai will be the
rate established in the final results of administrative review; (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in these
reviews but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-
specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in these
reviews, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise in the final results of these reviews, or the LTFV
investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is
a firm covered in these or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate
will be 162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation (59 FR 5994, February 9, 1994).
This notice serves as a preliminary 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
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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)).
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-7632 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
