[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9735-9737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5229]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-533-809]
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty new shipper
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9736]]
SUMMARY: On November 25, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its new shipper
reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel
flanges (SSF) from India (61 FR 59861). These reviews cover exports of
this merchandise to the United States by two manufacturer/exporters,
Isibars Ltd. (Isibars) and Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Ltd.
(Patheja), during the period September 1, 1995 through February 29,
1996.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We received comments from respondent Patheja
concerning alleged clerical errors. The review indicates the existence
of a dumping margin for Patheja for this period.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-2704 or 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments 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 to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
The antidumping duty order on SSF from India was published February
9, 1994 (59 FR 5994). On November 25, 1996, the Department published in
the Federal Register the preliminary results of these new shipper
reviews of the antidumping duty order on SSF from India (61 FR 59861).
The Department has now completed these new shipper reviews in
accordance with section 751 of the 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 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 reviews cover two Indian manufacturer/exporters, Isibars and
Patheja, and the period September 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received comments from Patheja on December 10,
1996, concerning alleged clerical errors.
Comment 1: Patheja argues that it provided audited figures on
August 22, 1996, to update provisional data submitted earlier, but the
Department relied instead on the earlier, provisional data for the
preliminary results. Patheja argues that the Department should revise
its analysis using the audited figures pertaining to cost of
manufacturing, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses
and profitability.
Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis
accordingly.
Comment 2: Patheja argues that the Department inadvertently added
vendor charges, a component of material costs, twice, resulting in
double counting of those charges.
Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis
accordingly.
Comment 3: Patheja argues that the Department failed to deduct the
value of scrap metal from the cost of manufacturing.
Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis
accordingly.
Comment 4: Patheja argues that the Department used as an ending
date for the credit expense period for U.S. sales the date of October
11, 1996, whereas the correct date of payment is October 30, 1996.
Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis
accordingly.
Final Results of Reviews
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we have
determined that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist
for Isibars and Patheja:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isibars................................... 9/1/95-
2/29/96 0.00
Patheja................................... 9/1/95-
2/29/96 1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual differences between the U.S. price and normal value may
vary from the above percentages. The Department shall instruct the
Customs Service to liquidate all appropriate entries, and to assess no
antidumping duties on Isibars' entries.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) The rate for the reviewed firms will be as listed above;
(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
[[Page 9737]]
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established
for the manufacturer of the merchandise in earlier reviews or the
original investigation, whichever is the most recent; and
(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during the 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 order (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 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
violation which is subject to sanction.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR
Sec. 353.22(h).
Dated: February 24, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-5229 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
