[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38382-38390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18882]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-583-815
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan; Final Results of
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results
of the 1995-1996 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain welded stainless steel pipe from Taiwan (A-583-815). This
review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise
during the period December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1996.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. Although, based upon our analysis of the comments
received, we have changed the results from those presented in our
preliminary results of review, a de minimis dumping margin still exists
for Ta Chen's sales of welded stainless steel pipe (WSSP) in the United
States. Accordingly, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
assess antidumping duties on entries of Ta Chen merchandise during the
period of review, in accordance with the Department's regulations (19
CFR 353.6).
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert James at (202) 482-5222 or John
Kugelman at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Applicable Statute and Regulations: Unless otherwise indicated, all
citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the
amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the
Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part
353 (April 1, 1997).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 30, 1992, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on welded stainless steel pipe
(WSSP) from Taiwan (57 FR 62300). On December 3, 1996, the Department
published the notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review'' for the period December 1, 1995 through November 30, 1996 (61
FR 64051). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1) (1997), respondent Ta
Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. and its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Ta
Chen International (collectively, Ta Chen), requested that we conduct a
review of their sales. On January 17, 1997, we published in the Federal
Register our notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review covering the period December 1, 1995 through
November 30, 1996 (62 FR 2647).
[[Page 38383]]
Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the
normal time frame, on July 24, 1997, we published in the Federal
Register our notice of extension of time limits for this review (62 FR
39824). We published the preliminary results of this review in the
Federal Register on January 9, 1998 (Certain Welded Stainless Steel
Pipe From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, 63 FR
1437 (Preliminary Results)). We published our notice of extension of
time limits for these final results in the Federal Register on March
17, 1998 (63 FR 13032).
Furthermore, on January 12 through January 20, 1998, the Department
conducted a verification of Ta Chen's home market sales data at Ta
Chen's headquarters in Tainan, Taiwan. We also verified Ta Chen's U.S.
sales data at the premises of Ta Chen International on January 26
through January 29, 1998 (see ``Results of Verification,'' below). The
full results of our verification are detailed in the Department's
verification reports. Public versions of these, and all public
documents referenced in this notice, are on file in Room B-099 of the
main Commerce building.
Petitioners and Ta Chen timely filed case briefs on May 14, 1998;
Ta Chen replied with its rebuttal brief dated May 21, 1998.
The Department has now completed this review in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act.
Scope of the Review
The merchandise subject to this administrative review is certain
welded austenitic stainless steel pipe (WSSP) that meets the standards
and specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated
ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of the order also
includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made according to the
standards of other nations which are comparable to ASTM A-312.
WSSP is produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled products
into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. WSSP is a
commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids or
gases. Major applications for WSSP include, but are not limited to,
digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical stock
lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food processing
lines, automotive paint lines, and paper process machines.
Imports of WSSP are currently classifiable under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheadings:
7306.40.5005, 7306.04.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and
7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes,
the scope of this investigation is limited to welded austenitic
stainless steel pipes. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this order is dispositive.
The period for this review is December 1, 1994 through November 30,
1995. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Ta Chen.
Results of Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act, we verified
information provided by the respondent using standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of Ta Chen's facilities in
Tainan, Taiwan and Ta Chen International's headquarters in Long Beach,
California, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. Our verification results for the home market and U.S.
verifications are outlined in public versions of, respectively, the
Home Market Verification Report and the U.S. Verification Report,
available to the public in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In
preparing for verification Ta Chen discovered minor corrections which
it presented to the Department's verifiers at the start of the home
market and U.S. verifications. In addition, as noted in the ``Analysis
of Comments'' section, below, our verifications revealed other minor
inaccuracies in Ta Chen's submitted data. Where appropriate, we have
adjusted Ta Chen's reported sales data to reflect these corrections.
Analysis of Comments Received
Comment 1: Export Price Versus Constructed Export Price Sales
Petitioners take issue with the determination in the Preliminary
Results to treat all of Ta Chen's U.S. sales as export price (EP)
sales, as defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act. Rather,
petitioners maintain, Ta Chen's so-called ``back-to-back'' sales
through Ta Chen International (TCI) properly are considered constructed
export price (CEP) transactions. Petitioners assert that the Department
customarily examines the activities of the affiliated U.S. importer in
determining whether U.S. sales should be classified as EP or CEP sales
using a three-prong test: (i) Whether the merchandise is shipped
directly from the manufacturer to the unaffiliated purchaser without
entering the physical inventory of the U.S. affiliate; (ii) whether
direct shipment from the manufacturer to the unaffiliated purchaser is
the customary channel of sales for the subject merchandise; and (iii)
whether the U.S. selling agent acted merely as a processor of sales-
related paperwork and a communication link between the manufacturer and
the unaffiliated purchaser. See Petitioners' May 14, 1998 Case Brief
(Case Brief) at 2, citing Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle Chain, From
Japan, 63 FR 25450 (May 8, 1998) (Roller Chain). Even if the
transactions involving TCI meet the first two prongs of this test,
petitioners continue, record evidence establishes that, as to the third
point, TCI acted as more than just a paper processor or communications
link. Claiming that TCI is ``integrally involved'' with Ta Chen's U.S.
sales of subject merchandise, petitioners point out that U.S. customers
approach TCI, not Ta Chen, when seeking price quotes. Case Brief at 3,
quoting the Department's Home Market Verification Report at 12. The
verification report continues by stating that the president of Ta Chen
and TCI, Robert Shieh, responds directly to the unaffiliated U.S.
customer. According to petitioners, what happens when the customer
rejects the initial quote and further price negotiations are required
is not clear; petitioners therefore make the ``reasonable inference''
that TCI concludes any such negotiations itself on behalf of Ta Chen in
Taiwan. Id. at 4. Further, petitioners argue, Ta Chen ``glosses over''
Mr. Shieh's role in Ta Chen's U.S. sales; as noted, in addition to
being president of Ta Chen, Mr. Shieh is also president of TCI, and
spends a considerable amount of his time in the United States at TCI's
Long Beach headquarters. Petitioners suggest that this indicates that
Mr. Shieh is acting as president of TCI, not of Ta Chen in Taiwan, when
he negotiates U.S. sales of welded stainless steel pipe.
Petitioners stress that when viewing sales transactions involving a
U.S. firm affiliated with the exporter, the Department will presume
that the transactions are CEP sales unless the record indicates that
the affiliate's role in the sale was ``incidental or ancillary.'' Case
Brief at 5, citing Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products From Korea, 63 FR 13170, 13177 (March 18, 1998)
(Korean Steel III). When viewed in its totality, petitioners aver, the
evidence demonstrates that TCI's role was more than ancillary and,
thus, Ta Chen's U.S.
[[Page 38384]]
sales should be treated as CEP sales. For example, petitioners argue,
TCI purchases subject pipe from Ta Chen and assumes ownership and risk
of loss, and TCI, not Ta Chen in Taiwan, actually enters into the sales
contract with the unaffiliated U.S. customers. This situation,
petitioners maintain, is analogous to that found in Korean Steel III
where, as here, the U.S. affiliate acted as the conduit for the foreign
parent's U.S. sales, the U.S. affiliate entered into the sales
contracts with unaffiliated U.S. customers, the U.S. affiliate played a
key role in all sales activities (such as issuing invoices, collecting
payment, financing the sale, etc.), and the U.S. affiliate incurred
``significant selling expenses in the United States.'' Case Brief at 6.
In light of TCI's ``very meaningful'' role in Ta Chen's U.S. sales,
petitioners conclude, the Department should treat all of Ta Chen's
sales as CEP transactions.
Ta Chen counters that the Department's treatment of Ta Chen's U.S.
sales as EP transactions was the correct interpretation of the
statutory definition of EP sales. Furthermore, Ta Chen insists, nothing
found at verification contradicted Ta Chen's long-standing assertion
that its U.S. sales comprised EP (or, under the pre-URAA statute,
``purchase price'') transactions. Citing Extruded Rubber Thread From
Malaysia, 62 FR 33588 (June 20, 1997) (Extruded Rubber), Ta Chen argues
that the Department examined a similar fact pattern surrounding so-
called ``back-to-back'' sales and concluded that where all three
conditions of the Department's test are met (i.e., the merchandise was
shipped directly to the unaffiliated U.S. customer, the channel of
distribution was normal for the parties involved, and the U.S. selling
agent acted as a communication link only), the transactions qualify for
treatment as EP sales. According to Ta Chen, Extruded Rubber also noted
that the Tariff Act defines EP as ``the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of
importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States * * * '' Ta Chen's Rebuttal Brief at 5, quoting Extruded Rubber
at 33597 (Ta Chen's emphasis).
Ta Chen submits that all of its sales of subject pipe during this
review were shipped directly from Ta Chen's Tainan plant to the
unaffiliated U.S. customer. This channel of distribution, Ta Chen
avers, has been customary between Ta Chen and its U.S. customers
``since well before the U.S. dumping matter began,'' noting that it
employed ``back-to-back'' sales as one of its major channels of
distribution prior to the 1991 filing of the antidumping petition.
As to the third test, whether Ta Chen International acted merely as
a processor of sales-related documents and communications link between
Ta Chen and its U.S. customers, Ta Chen insists that TCI's activities
are even less extensive than those typically cited by the Department as
possible indicators that a U.S. affiliate played a more substantial
part in the sales in question. For example, Ta Chen continues, the
Department's January 22, 1998 Antidumping Manual suggests that
functions ``such as the administration of warranties, advertising, in-
house technical assistance, and the supervision of further
manufacturing may indicate that the [U.S.] agent is more than the sales
facilitator envisioned for EP sales.'' Rebuttal Brief at 5, quoting
Antidumping Manual, Chapter 7 (Ta Chen's emphasis). That TCI engages in
none of the activities suggested as indicating sales might be
considered CEP transactions, Ta Chen maintains, further supports the
Department's preliminary determination that these sales warranted EP
treatment.
Furthermore, Ta Chen continues, in Extruded Rubber the Department
found sales to be EP transactions ``irrespective of any involvement in
the pricing of these sales by the U.S. subsidiary.'' Rebuttal Brief at
6. In Ta Chen's view the key determinant in the EP versus CEP analysis
is the statute's focus on whether the ``subject merchandise is first
sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation,'' as is the
case in the instant review. Ta Chen submits that for its U.S.
transactions the subject merchandise was first sold to the unaffiliated
U.S. customer before importation and subsequently shipped directly to
that customer, pointing to the purchase orders and shipment dates as
confirmation. Thus, Ta Chen argues, the controlling statutory language
defines these as EP sales. As to Robert Shieh's involvement in setting
prices, Ta Chen argues in both its case and rebuttal briefs that Mr.
Shieh ``acts under the direction of Ta Chen Taiwan's Board of
Directors'' which has ``directed Mr. Shieh to set U.S. prices based on
cost of production in Taiwan and Ta Chen's home market prices * * *''
Ta Chen's Case Brief at 3 and 4; Ta Chen's Rebuttal Brief at 7, quoting
Ta Chen's supplemental response at 253. ``Robert Shieh's authority,''
Ta Chen asserts, ``flows from Ta Chen Taiwan,'' and not from TCI.
Rebuttal Brief at 9. In any event, Ta Chen concludes, a U.S.
affiliate's active participation in the sales process is insufficient
grounds for treating sales as EP transactions where the affiliate lacks
the ability to set prices or terms of sale. Id. at 8, citing Certain
Stainless Steel Wire Rods From France, 58 FR 68865 (December 29, 1993).
Ta Chen also contests several factual conclusions posited in
petitioners case brief. According to Ta Chen, TCI passed requests for
quotes from U.S. customers to Ta Chen Taiwan, a role consistent with
that of a paper processor. Ta Chen also insists that the amount of time
Mr. Shieh spends in the United States is a ``personal decision''
relating to his family which is irrelevant to the Department's
antidumping analysis. Further, that TCI actually purchases the subject
merchandise and then enters into contracts to sell it to unaffiliated
U.S. customers (in ``back-to-back'' sales transactions) is the same
situation found in Extruded Rubber and Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea, 62 FR 18404 (April 15,
1997) (Korean Steel II), where the Department analyzed the sales in
question as EP transactions. Finally, Ta Chen rejects petitioners'
``speculative claims'' that TCI takes over and concludes price
negotiations for Ta Chen's U.S. sales independently of Ta Chen Taiwan
in those cases where a customer rejects Ta Chen's initial price
offering.
Furthermore, Ta Chen argues, petitioners reliance on Korean Steel
III is misplaced, noting several quantitative and qualitative
differences between the activities of TCI when compared to those of the
affiliated U.S. resellers in Korean Steel III. Ta Chen suggests that in
the latter case, U.S. customers seldom had contact with the foreign
producer, nor did the foreign producer set prices for U.S. sales.
Furthermore, the U.S. affiliates financed U.S. sales by borrowing to
finance accounts receivable. These facts, Ta Chen insists, do not
obtain in the instant review.
Assuming, arguendo, that Ta Chen's sales are properly considered
CEP transactions, Ta Chen suggests that the record contains sufficient
information to make any adjustments to U.S. price and normal value
required under a CEP analysis. Furthermore, Ta Chen argues that should
the Department elect to treat Ta Chen's sales as CEP transactions, Ta
Chen should be granted a CEP offset in lieu of a level-of-trade
adjustment, as its home market sales represent a more advanced stage of
marketing than the Ta Chen--TCI CEP level of trade. Ta Chen makes
further comments regarding the Department's treatment of sales to
specific customers in prior review periods. As these customers do not
appear in this review, any comments
[[Page 38385]]
concerning sales made in prior PORs are thus irrelevant to this review
and are not addressed here.
Department's Position
We disagree with petitioners, and agree, in part, with respondent
that Ta Chen's U.S. sales in this review warrant treatment as EP
transactions. As a threshold matter, while we agree with Ta Chen that
its U.S. sales in this review warrant EP treatment, we disagree with Ta
Chen's assertions that the statute requires the Department in every
instance to treat sales which precede importation as EP sales. Rather,
while the statute defines EP as involving sales made prior to
importation, the relevant statutory definition of CEP states clearly
that
* * *``constructed export price'' means the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) into the
United States before or after the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not
affiliated with the producer or exporter * * *
See Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act (emphasis added).
Thus, nothing in the statute requires the Department to treat as EP
transactions all sales which happen to precede the date of importation.
Rather, sales taking place prior to importation may be either EP or CEP
sales, given the specific circumstances surrounding the transactions.
In the instant review, as we stated above, the evidence on record does
not support a reclassification of Ta Chen's U.S. sales from EP to CEP
transactions. Nothing in the statute, however, precludes the Department
from doing so, where appropriate.
To ensure proper application of the statutory definitions, where a
U.S. affiliate is involved in making a sale, we consider the sale to be
CEP unless the record demonstrates that the U.S. affiliate's
involvement in making the sale is incidental or ancillary. See Korean
Steel III, 63 FR 13170, 13177 (March 18, 1998). Whenever sales are made
prior to importation through an affiliated entity in the United States,
the Department applies a three-pronged test to determine whether to
treat such sales as EP, as follows: (i) Whether the merchandise was
shipped directly to the unaffiliated buyer, without first being
introduced into the affiliated selling agent's inventory; (ii) whether
direct shipment from the manufacturer to the unaffiliated buyer was the
customary channel for sales of this merchandise between the parties
involved; and (iii) whether the affiliated selling agent located in the
United States acts only as a processor of sales-related documentation
and communication link between the foreign producer and the
unaffiliated purchaser. See, e.g., PQ Corp. v. U.S., 652 F. Supp. 724,
731 (CIT 1987) and Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products v. United States,
829 F. Supp. 1371, 1379 (CIT 1993). Where all three of these criteria
are met, we consider the exporter's sales functions to have been
relocated geographically from the country of exportation to the United
States, where the sales agent performs them. See, e.g., Large Newspaper
Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or
Unassembled, From Germany, 61 FR 38166 (July 23, 1996), New Minivans
From Japan, 57 FR 21937 (May 26, 1992), and Certain Internal-Combustion
Forklift Trucks From Japan, 53 FR 12552 (April 15, 1988). Furthermore,
as we stated in Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain, 63 FR 10849 (March
5, 1998) (Preliminary Determination), where ``the activities of the
U.S. affiliate are ancillary to the sale (e.g., arranging
transportation or customs clearance), we treat the transactions as EP
sales. Where the U.S. affiliate is substantially involved in the sales
process (e.g., negotiating prices, performing support functions), we
treat the transactions as CEP sales.'' 63 FR 10849, 10852; see also
Korean Steel III.
As for the first criterion in this case, i.e., direct shipment to
the unaffiliated U.S. customer, no party to these proceedings has
presented any evidence to challenge Ta Chen's statements that in the
instant review Ta Chen shipped the subject merchandise directly to the
unaffiliated U.S. customer's location (or to the U.S. port designated
by the customer) without first introducing the merchandise into TCI's
physical inventory. Further, we discovered no evidence at verification
to suggest that the merchandise was shipped in any other fashion.
With respect to the second criterion, i.e., whether direct shipment
to the customer is the customary channel of trade, we agree with Ta
Chen. No evidence on record contradicts Ta Chen's statement that direct
shipment was the normal course of business long before this dumping
matter began. See Ta Chen's April 14, 1997, questionnaire response at 5
and 6. In the most-recently-concluded past review, the Department has
treated Ta Chen's sales as EP sales based, in part, upon direct
shipment from Ta Chen to the U.S. customer. See Certain Welded
Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Administrative
Review, 62 FR 1435, 1436.
With respect to the third criterion, i.e., whether Ta Chen
International (TCI) acted as a processor of sales-related documentation
and a communication link with the unaffiliated purchaser, the facts on
record indicate that TCI's role is ancillary to the sales process with
respect to sales of subject merchandise during this administrative
review. In this review TCI did not play a key role in the sales
negotiation process, nor did TCI play a major role in the selling
activities in the United States. Accordingly, we have continued to
accord EP treatment to Ta Chen's sales in this review.
In this case the available evidence of record indicates that Ta
Chen in Taiwan is responsible for setting the prices of U.S. sales,
acting through its president, Robert Shieh.1 Ta Chen sets
base, or minimum, prices using its costs of production in Taiwan. Ta
Chen responds to requests for price quotes, and Ta Chen officials in
Tainan develop new quotes for any sizes or schedules of pipe not found
on Ta Chen's prepared lists. See, e.g., Ta Chen's supplemental response
at 79, n. 12, and U.S. Verification Report at 10. Further, Ta Chen
knows the final price to the U.S. customer at the time it sets its
transfer prices between Ta Chen and TCI, and the record clearly
indicates that TCI has no say in the prices of these
transactions.2 Thus, the subject merchandise is first sold
to the unaffiliated customer in the United States before it is sold to
the affiliated distributor, TCI. There is no record evidence, either
submitted by the parties or generated at verification, to indicate that
TCI has any independent authority to negotiate or set prices for direct
sales of subject merchandise in the United States. For example, the
Home Market Verification Report at 13 notes that the vice-president of
TCI will not quote prices to customers; rather, he defers to Mr. Shieh,
whether the latter is in Long Beach or in Tainan. This is decidedly not
the case for TCI's sales of non-subject merchandise from its
[[Page 38386]]
warehouse facilities. The U.S. Verification Report notes that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While we agree with Ta Chen that in setting prices Mr. Shieh
is acting principally in his role as president of Ta Chen, rather
than as president of TCI, we reject Ta Chen's dictum that he ``acts
under the direction of Ta Chen's Board of Directors,'' or that the
Board of Directors issues specific instructions to Mr. Shieh as to
how to set prices. Rather, the record evidence, including Mr.
Shieh's statements at verification, makes abundantly clear that Mr.
Shieh acts on his own authority with no direction or input whatever
from any other member of Ta Chen's Board.
\2\ That TCI has no say whatever in the profitability of its own
sales of subject merchandise, by determining the amount of a price
markup, is further evidence that the entire sales process is
controlled by Ta Chen in Taiwan. See Korean Steel III at 13183.
[c]ustomers' requests for price quotes are handled by TCI and
not forwarded to Ta Chen. A number of officials at TCI are
authorized to provide quotes to customers for these sales * * *. The
customer's [purchase order] is handed directly to TCI's shipping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
department for preparation and shipment.
U.S. Verification Report at 8 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the authority to set prices as indicated above is further
evidenced by the ways in which the companies set prices for ``back-to-
back'' sales and sales out of TCI's inventory. The prices of TCI's
sales from its Long Beach inventory are set on an entirely different
basis than prices for direct shipments. Prices for products sold out of
inventory are derived from a multiplier of a domestic mill's list
prices, whereas prices for direct shipments are computed from Ta Chen's
cost of production. Finally, unlike the case of Korean Steel III, in
the present case unaffiliated U.S. customers maintain direct contact
with the foreign exporter or producer, Ta Chen.
With respect to any subsequent price negotiations that may become
necessary when a customer rejects Ta Chen's initial quote, it is clear
from the record that in Ta Chen's ``back-to-back'' sales arrangement no
official other than Mr. Shieh is authorized to provide prices, grant
discounts, or allow credits for damaged or defective goods. After
discussions with company officials at verifications in Tainan and Long
Beach, it is clear that TCI company officials are not authorized to
negotiate prices. See, e.g., Home Market Verification Report at 13
(``Using the same pricing scheme (cost + GNA + profit), Ta Chen Taiwan
will provide a price quote''), and U.S. Verification Report at 3
(``While TCI's vice-president, James Chang, is nominally head of the
pipe and fittings sales division, Mr. Chang himself averred that Mr.
Shieh `handles all the [pipe and pipe fittings] sales' '').
As for petitioners' observation that Ta Chen resumed sales of
subject merchandise from inventory immediately following the instant
POR, thus supporting a conclusion that Ta Chen's sales in this POR
should be considered CEP transactions, we find this fact does not
relate to the issue of how direct ``back-to-back'' sales were
negotiated during the instant review. As we have noted, sales from
inventory follow an entirely different course, and are concluded by
different individuals, using different pricing formulae, than are Ta
Chen's direct ``back-to-back'' sales.
Further, we did not include in our analysis the fact that TCI did
not engage in such activities as warranties, advertising, in-house
technical assistance and supervision of further manufacturing, as was
the case, for example, in Korean Steel III and Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate From Canada, 63 FR 12725 (March 16, 1998). Although these
types of activities are clearly selling functions, the issue of who
performs such activities is only relevant where such activities are in
fact performed for the sale of the subject merchandise. In this case,
neither TCI nor Ta Chen engaged in such activities with respect to
sales of the subject merchandise.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ta Chen Taiwan does provide minimal advertising in the form
of product brochures; no other advertising medium is employed either
by Ta Chen or by TCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this portion of the test is to determine which
entity performs the primary selling functions pertaining to the sale of
the subject merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, that analysis is
conducted on a case-by-case basis and is based upon the actual selling
functions performed in each case. In the present case the selling
activities performed for the sale of this commodity product, for both
Ta Chen and TCI combined, appear to be minimal.
Finally, during this review, we note that TCI engaged in the
process of issuing invoices, collecting payment, paying antidumping
duty deposits, and taking title to the subject merchandise after entry
into the United States. We do not find that these activities alone are
sufficient to warrant treatment of such sales as CEP transactions.
Rather, consistent with our past precedent in these matters, such
activities are fully consistent with those of the selling agent that
takes over the sales functions which have been ``relocated
geographically from the country of exportation to the United States,
where the sales agent performs them.'' Large Newspaper Printing Presses
and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany,
61 FR 38166 (July 23, 1996).
Comment Two: U.S. Packing Costs
Petitioners charge Ta Chen with understating the cost of packing
materials (specifically, wooden crates) used to package shipments for
export to the United States. According to petitioners, the Department's
Home Market Verification Report notes that this understatement occurred
on four of the five sales transactions examined at verification.
Petitioners urge the Department to make an upward adjustment to Ta
Chen's export packing materials equal to the average percentage
difference between the reported material expenses and the actual
amounts found at verification.
Also understated, petitioners contend, was Ta Chen's packing labor
for export sales. Petitioners note that Ta Chen's supplemental
questionnaire response and home market and U.S. sales listings
contained revised packing labor costs, with labor costs for home market
packing considerably higher than that for U.S. sales. Turning to the
Department's verification report, petitioners note that Ta Chen derived
these figures using estimates provided by Ta Chen's supervisor for
packing, but was unable to provide any documentation or worksheets to
support the supervisor's estimates. Petitioners suggest that Ta Chen
contradicted these estimates when it admitted at verification that
``export shipping, in fact, requires more steps and takes longer per
kilogram than home market shipments.'' Case Brief at 8, quoting the
Home Market Verification Report at 21 and 22 (petitioners' emphasis
omitted). Thus, petitioners insist, by Ta Chen's own admission the
actual packing labor costs for U.S. sales exceed actual packing labor
costs for domestic shipments within Taiwan. That statement is
consistent with the extra steps (such as packing the subject pipe in
wooden crates) required for export shipments. To correct this alleged
under-reporting of U.S. packing labor, petitioners argue, the
Department should use the ratio of U.S. and home market packing
material costs as the basis for adjusting upward Ta Chen's U.S. packing
labor expenses.
Ta Chen submits that its records do not permit a breakdown of
packing labor by market or product type and, therefore, it simply
allocated packing costs over the U.S. and home market weights packed.
According to Ta Chen, it included revised packing costs based on an
estimate of the relative time spent packing home market and export
shipments in its supplemental response as instructed by the Department
in its supplemental questionnaire. Ta Chen concedes that export
shipments require more packing materials and more steps to pack the
merchandise than do shipments within Taiwan. On the other hand, Ta Chen
continues, the larger quantities of merchandise packed for export work
to reduce the per-kilogram packing costs associated with export sales.
As for petitioners' comments concerning wooden crate expenses, Ta Chen
did not reply.
[[Page 38387]]
Noting that it can ``appreciate'' the Department seeking to
determine a more accurate method of calculating packing labor costs (by
investigating alternative reporting methodologies in its supplemental
questionnaire), Ta Chen expresses ``no objections'' to the Department's
use of the data originally submitted with Ta Chen's April 14, 1997
response. Ta Chen does, however, object to petitioners' proposal to
recalculate packing labor costs based on the ratio of packing material
costs for the respective markets, claiming that such an allocation
``makes no sense'' and has no rational connection to actual packing
labor time.
Department's Position
We agree with petitioners on both points. During verification we
compared the reported export packing material costs for the wooden
crates, reported as data field PACKM1P, to the actual per-kilogram
expenses as reflected in Ta Chen's ``Packing & Finished Goods Turn-in
Reports.'' For four of the five transactions examined Ta Chen's
reported packing material expenses were understated (wooden crate costs
for the remaining transaction were overstated). We conclude, therefore,
that Ta Chen's allocation methodology for reporting these expenses
bears little or no relationship to the manner in which these costs are
actually incurred. Therefore, we have recalculated Ta Chen's wooden
crate expenses using Ta Chen's own data gathered at verification. Based
on these data, we have adjusted PACKM1P upward by the average
percentage difference between the actual wooden crate costs reflected
in Ta Chen's shipping department records and the values reported in Ta
Chen's U.S. sales listing. See the Department's Final Results Analysis
Memorandum, July 8, 1998, a public version of which is on file in Room
B-099 of the main Commerce building.
With respect to packing labor, as noted in the Ta Chen Verification
Report, packing for export requires additional steps, additional
materials, and, consequently, additional time. However, Ta Chen used an
allocation methodology for its packing labor expenses which apportions
a significantly greater amount of these expenses to its home market
sales, based upon ``an estimate provided by the supervisor of the
packing division.'' Home Market Verification Report at 21. The
resultant home market and U.S. packing labor factors do not, as the
report notes, ``comport with Ta Chen's actual experience in packing
subject merchandise for the respective markets.'' That the report also
notes ``no discrepancies with this allocation'' cannot be read as the
Department's endorsement of the specific allocation methodology
selected. Rather, it indicates that Ta Chen used verifiably accurate
figures for total labor expense and total shipments in its allocation,
not that the allocation methodology itself was appropriate in this
case. In fact, as with the wooden crate expenses, Ta Chen's method of
reporting its packing labor expenses bears no relationship to the
manner in which Ta Chen actually incurred these expenses. Ta Chen's use
of an estimate to allocate packing labor expenses ``does not
necessarily mean that [Ta Chen] incurred the expenses differently'' due
to shipping for the home market versus for the export market. Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan,
63 FR 2558, 2579 (January 15, 1998) (TRBs From Japan). Rather, the sole
support for this allocation is the allocation itself. When we asked
officials at Ta Chen to provide some support, in the form of internal
time studies, worksheets used by the supervisor in devising the
estimate, etc., Ta Chen responded that it had no such documentation.
Therefore, we have rejected Ta Chen's reporting of packing labor based
upon the unsupported estimate of the packing labor supervisor.
Likewise, while not as egregious, Ta Chen's original packing labor
methodology included in its April 14, 1997 response has the effect of
understating packing labor costs attributable to export shipments while
overstating these costs for home market shipments. We have stated in a
different context that we will not reject a respondent's allocation
methodologies in favor of the facts otherwise available if (i) a fully-
cooperating respondent is unable to report the requested information in
a more specific manner and (ii) the selected allocation methodology is
not unreasonably distortive. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings), and Parts Thereof, From France, et al., 72 FR
2081, 2090 (January 15, 1997); see also TRBs From Japan, 63 FR 2558,
2566 (January 15, 1998). While we believe that Ta Chen has satisfied
the first test (Ta Chen's records kept in its ordinary course of
business do not readily permit a breakdown of home market versus export
packing labor), we cannot accept a resulting allocation methodology
which is unreasonably distortive. Allocating this expense so that home
market packing labor is equal to, or greater than, export packing
labor, while simultaneously acknowledging that the latter is more
labor-intensive, is unreasonably distortive.
As to Ta Chen's suggestion that it merely revised its labor costs
in response to the Department's request, we reject that assertion. The
Department's inquiry on this point, included in its October 9, 1997
supplemental questionnaire, reads:
It appears as though you have reported the same packing labor
costs for both H[ome] M[arket] and U.S. sales while your response
indicates that U.S. sales require additional labor (i.e., packing of
merchandise into wooden boxes). Please explain and, if necessary,
revise your labor costs to reflect this additional service for
export sales.
Supplemental Questionnaire at 8.
In response, Ta Chen argued that any differences in packing labor
expenses in the two markets would, of necessity, be de minimis, but
then proceeded to reallocate these expenses in such a fashion as to
actually decrease the portion of Ta Chen's labor expenses relating to
export shipments. As indicated above, we find that neither of Ta Chen's
selected reporting methodologies reflects its actual experience in the
packing and shipping of subject merchandise. Therefore, we have
recalculated Ta Chen's U.S. packing labor expenses. As facts available,
we relied on Ta Chen's own data submitted on the record of this review.
We compared the ratio of home market to U.S. packing material costs and
applied the resulting ratio to Ta Chen's reported packing labor. For a
discussion of the precise calculation of this revised packing labor
factor, please see the Department's Final Results Analysis Memorandum,
a public version of which is on file in Room B-099 of the main Commerce
building.
Comment Three: Import Duties and Cost of Production
Ta Chen imports stainless steel coil to its customs-bonded factory
in Tainan where it fashions the stainless steel into finished pipe
subject to the order and other merchandise (for example, stainless
steel pipe fittings) which is not subject to the order. It also resells
some stainless steel coil in the home market. For finished products
subsequently sold in Taiwan Ta Chen is liable for import duties (these
duties are forgiven if the finished products are exported). Petitioners
note that the Department in its Preliminary Results increased U.S.
price by the amount of Taiwan import duties because Ta Chen's home
market prices included these duties. If, petitioners suggest, Ta Chen's
home market prices included import duties on imported stainless steel
coil, Ta Chen's cost of production should also reflect
[[Page 38388]]
these home market duties to avoid comparison of duty-inclusive home
market prices to duty-exclusive costs of production. Petitioners
contend that such an approach would be consistent with the Department's
treatment of this identical issue in the final results of the 1994-1995
administrative review. Case Brief at 10 and 11, citing Certain Welded
Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan; Final Results of Administrative
Review, 62 FR 37543, 37555 (July 14, 1997) (Stainless Pipe From
Taiwan).
Ta Chen responds by confirming that its home market gross unit
prices include Taiwan import duties, and suggests that the Department
deduct these duties when calculating the net home market price used for
comparison to COP. This approach, Ta Chen avers, ``most accurately
determines the true profitability of each individual sale.'' Rebuttal
Brief at 17. The alternative, i.e., adding the import duties to Ta
Chen's reported costs of production, would, Ta Chen insists, result in
double-counting of these duties.
Department's Position
We agree with petitioners and with Ta Chen. As we stated in the
final results of the 1994-1995 administrative review, ``[w]e have
adjusted our calculation of the net home market price used in our COP
test to deduct the amount of the import duties.'' Stainless Pipe From
Taiwan 62 FR 37543, 37555 (July 14, 1997).
Consistent with Stainless Pipe From Taiwan, we conducted the cost
test on a duty-exclusive basis. Thus, no change is required to our
final margin computer program because the preliminary program already
deducts import duties from the net price used in the cost test. See the
Public Version of the Department's Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,
December 29, 1997, at Attachment One, line 148.
Comment Four: Duty Drawback
In addition to their comment regarding the treatment of import
duties in Ta Chen's cost of production, petitioners argue that Ta Chen
is not entitled to an upward ``duty drawback'' adjustment to EP.
Petitioners note that unlike in prior reviews, Ta Chen purchased much
of the stainless steel coil used to fabricate subject WSSP from
domestic sources; the Home Market Verification Report states that a
Taiwanese mill was Ta Chen's single largest coil supplier during the
POR. Case Brief at 12, quoting the Home Market Verification Report at
10. Furthermore, petitioners maintain, Ta Chen's own questionnaire
response indicated that Ta Chen ``does not pay any Taiwan import duties
on material used to make pipe.'' Id., quoting Ta Chen's April 14, 1997
response at 70. Petitioners contend that this issue did not arise in
prior reviews when Ta Chen imported all of the stainless steel coil
used to produce subject merchandise (and, thus, all home market sales
of finished pipe were subject to the Taiwanese import duties). In
contrast, petitioners argue, in the instant review the record indicates
that a portion of Ta Chen's input stainless steel coil came from
Taiwanese mills. In light of this change petitioners urge the
Department to ``conduct its standard analysis to determine whether Ta
Chen meets the requirements for a duty drawback adjustment.''
Petitioners point to Stainless Steel Bar From India, where the
Department stated that any duty drawback adjustment would depend upon a
finding that (i) the import duty and rebate are directly linked to, and
dependent upon, each other, and (ii) the company claiming the
adjustment can demonstrate sufficient imports of raw material to
account for the claimed drawback received. Case Brief at 13, quoting
Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 63 FR 13622, 13625 (March 20, 1998). According
to petitioners, information gathered at verification concerning Ta
Chen's purchases of stainless steel coil from domestic and off-shore
mills indicates that Ta Chen's imports of stainless steel coil were not
sufficient to account for the drawback applicable to Ta Chen's exports.
Furthermore, petitioners continue, it is reasonable to assume that Ta
Chen used domestic coil to produce subject pipe for sale in the home
market precisely because such coil would not be subject to Taiwan
import duties. Because Ta Chen did not meet the Department's
requirements for a duty drawback adjustment, petitioners conclude, the
Department should deny this adjustment in the final results of this
review.
Ta Chen insists it is entitled to a circumstance-of-sale adjustment
to account for home market import duties, just as a ``comparable
circumstances of sale [sic] adjustment is made for the U.S. import
duties Ta Chen pays on its U.S. sales.'' Rebuttal Brief at 17.
According to Ta Chen, its section B home market sales listing reflects
that, in fact, for most sales the unaffiliated customer paid the duties
(and, therefore, Ta Chen reported a value of zero for import duties).
In those instances where Ta Chen did pay the duties, it reported these
on a per-kilogram basis. Ta Chen notes that its home market gross unit
prices are reported inclusive of import duties.
As for petitioners' comments regarding the quantities of stainless
steel coil purchased by Ta Chen from domestic and off-shore mills, Ta
Chen points out that petitioners failed to note the ``enormous
quantity'' of stainless steel coil sold in coil form, i.e., as
purchased, by Ta Chen. Furthermore, the figures cited by petitioners
demonstrate the stainless steel coil imported by Ta Chen was more than
sufficient to account for the volume of pipe Ta Chen sold domestically
and for export.
Department's Position
We disagree with petitioners. Welded stainless steel pipe is
produced, essentially, from a single raw material: annealed and pickled
austenitic stainless steel sheet or plate in coil form. Traditionally
Ta Chen sourced all of its stainless steel coil from foreign mills;
during the instant period of review as well the vast majority of Ta
Chen's coil came from abroad. As Ta Chen's plant is a customs bonded
facility, imports of stainless steel coil are not subject to import
duties at the time of importation. Import duties are only owed at such
time as the finished merchandise enters Taiwan customs territory, i.e.,
it is sold in the home market. No import duties are collected if the
imported raw material is subsequently re-exported, whether in the form
of finished pipe or pipe fittings, or in cut-to-length or coil form. Ta
Chen's questionnaire responses and the information presented at
verification amply demonstrate the nature of these import duties and
the manner in which they are assessed. See, e.g., Ta Chen Verification
Report at 23 and 24. Further, Ta Chen satisfied the Department as to
the amount of such duties (``[w]e traced the total [duties paid] to Ta
Chen's monthly import duty for domestic sales report, general ledger,
and statement of checking account without discrepancy * * *''). Id. at
15. As the Court of International Trade has consistently held, ``there
is no requirement that [a] specific input be traced from importation
through exportation before allowing drawback on duties paid * * *''
See, e.g., Far East Machinery Co. v. U.S., 699 F. Supp. 309, 312 (CIT
1988); see also LaClede Steel Co. v. U.S., Slip Op. 94-160 (October 12,
1994) (LaClede Steel). Thus, we are convinced that the import duties
and the amount ``not collected by reason of the exportation of the
subject merchandise to the United States'' are directly linked to, and
dependent upon,
[[Page 38389]]
each other. See Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act.
As for the second prong of the test, whether there were sufficient
imports of raw materials to account for the drawback received, the
record evidence, including data obtained during verification, indicates
that Ta Chen more than satisfied this requirement. As Ta Chen notes in
its rebuttal brief, petitioners' comment fails to take into account the
volumes of stainless steel coil that Ta Chen re-sold in coil form in
the home market, or subsequently exported in coil form. Nor do
petitioners consider the volume of imported and domestic stainless
steel coil used to fabricate non-subject merchandise for the domestic
and export markets, such as stainless steel pipe fittings. In this
case, we believe that we have, as the Court stated in LaClede Steel,
``verified that [the respondent] imported sufficient raw materials to
account for duty drawback received on exports of pipe.''
Finally, with respect to Ta Chen's statement that it ``does not pay
any Taiwan import duties on material used to make pipe,'' the record
indicates clearly that Ta Chen does not pay these duties at the time of
importation of the stainless steel coil. Rather, these duties are due
when the finished product (e.g., welded stainless steel pipe) enters
Taiwan customs territory. Thus, we find this case analogous to Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From India, where a similar import
duty scheme was described as presenting ``the rare situation in which,
rather than being rebated as is usually the case, the import duties
were actually `not collected, by reason of the exportation of the
subject merchandise to the United States.' '' 62 FR 47632, 47634
(September 10, 1997). As we concluded in that case, so we conclude
here: ``[t]his type of program falls within the express language of
section 772(c)(1)(B)'' of the Tariff Act. Accordingly, we have accepted
Ta Chen's claimed adjustment for duty drawback for these final results.
Comment Five: Effect of Compensating Balances on U.S. Credit Expenses
According to petitioners, Ta Chen's imputed credit expenses for
U.S. sales must be increased to include the costs of compensating
balances. Petitioners note that the Department's October 9, 1997
supplemental questionnaire and Ta Chen's October 31, 1997 supplemental
response both indicated that Ta Chen's reported imputed credit expenses
did not take into account these compensating balances. Further, Ta
Chen's supplemental response provided the amounts of these compensating
balances and the factor necessary to calculate revised imputed credit
expenses for U.S. sales. Petitioners urge the Department to implement
this revision for the final results of this review.
Ta Chen offered no rebuttal to this comment.
Department's Position
We agree with petitioners and have made the appropriate correction
to U.S. credit costs. We did this by multiplying the reported credit
amounts on Ta Chen's U.S. sales listing by the revised factor supplied
by Ta Chen to account for compensating balances.
Comment Six: Comments on Verification Reports
Ta Chen insists that the completeness of its U.S. sales listing was
fully verified through reconciliation of the reported sales values to
Ta Chen's audited financial statements, a process used by Ta Chen and
accepted by the Department in the past. Ta Chen takes issue with the
tone of the U.S. Verification Report which suggests that Ta Chen failed
to provide documentation of its reported U.S. sales quantities.
According to Ta Chen, its audited financial statements record total
sales value, but do not contain any information concerning sales
quantities. The Department, Ta Chen avers, has never insisted on a
separate confirmation of its sales quantities, once it had reconciled
successfully its overall sales value.
Ta Chen also maintains that it provided ample documentation at
verification to demonstrate that certain U.S. sales of pipe entered the
United States prior to the instant POR and, therefore, properly were
excluded from Ta Chen's section C U.S. sales listing.
Contrary to statements in the Ta Chen Verification Report, Ta Chen
submits, its packing personnel did not have difficulty bundling and
weighing subject pipe and, in any event, the weight figures reported to
the Department were taken from records kept in Ta Chen's normal course
of business.
With respect to home market sales to one affiliated customer,
Blossum, Ta Chen intimates that these sales represented an
insignificant portion of Ta Chen's home market sales and, thus,
Blossum's downstream sales would not be required for the Department's
analysis.
Ta Chen also commented on our description of the verification of
home market freight expenses. Ta Chen attributes the uncertainty of one
company official as to home market shipping distances to that ``high-
level'' official's unfamiliarity with the minutiae of domestic shipping
patterns; when the responsible company official addressed the issue, no
uncertainty remained. Also, Ta Chen sold its company-owned flatbed
truck at the midpoint of this POR. While Ta Chen's home market freight
expenses were not reduced by the value of refunded vehicle plate taxes
for the six months after Ta Chen sold its truck, Ta Chen suggests that
(i) the data exist to permit a recalculation and (ii) any such revision
would have a de minimis effect. As to fuel costs, Ta Chen takes issue
with the Home Market Verification Report's comment that Ta Chen could
not document these costs. According to Ta Chen, there were no
outstanding, unanswered requests for gasoline receipts or other
documentation at the close of verification.
Finally, Ta Chen makes a number of suggestions to correct
typographical errors in the reports.
Department's Position
While we agree in essence with many of Ta Chen's comments, we stand
by the verification reports as written. With respect to the
completeness test, we were unable to verify separately the quantities
reported in Ta Chen's U.S. sales listing. However, we did fully
reconcile the reported U.S. sales value to Ta Chen's and TCI's audited
financial statements and, furthermore, noted no discrepancies in an
unusually extensive random check of invoices and purchase orders issued
throughout the POR. The Department considers Ta Chen's home market and
U.S. sales quantities fully verified. We also agree with Ta Chen that
it satisfied the verifiers that certain sales of pipe entered the
United States prior to the POR, and that no outstanding questions on
this issue remained at the close of verification.
As for the comment on the facility with which Ta Chen's packing
personnel handled pipe at the scale, Ta Chen claimed at verification
that the weights reported for its home market and U.S. sales listings
were based on transaction-specific actual weights obtained, Ta Chen
claimed, by weighing each shipment of pipe as it was prepared for
dispatch. We asked to see this process in operation and returned to Ta
Chen's pipe mill. There Ta Chen personnel mishandled the pipe, had
difficulty gathering the proper number of pieces in a single bundle,
struggled to fasten the scale's sling to the scale's lift, and, using a
two-button switch box, nonetheless lowered the scale when they meant to
raise it, and raised it when they meant to lower it. Thus, we
[[Page 38390]]
stand by our characterization of this process as ``difficult.''
Ta Chen provided exhaustive explanations of its sales transactions
involving Blossom. We have no basis for rejecting Ta Chen's sales to
Blossom or for requiring that Ta Chen report Blossom's subsequent home
market sales. Similarly, we did not use the downstream U.S. sales
through one U.S. customer, Team Alloys, that Ta Chen subsequently
acquired, even though Ta Chen reported these downstream sales in a
separate section C computer file.
As for home market shipping expenses, we have used the expenses as
reported by Ta Chen, and have made no corrections in light of our
findings at verification.
Finally, the Department agrees with Ta Chen's suggested
typographical clarifications.
Final Results of Review
Based on our review of the arguments presented above, for these
final results we have made changes in our margin calculations for Ta
Chen. After comparison of Ta Chen's EP to normal value (NV), we have
determined that Ta Chen's weighted-average margin for the period
December 1, 1994 through November 30, 1995 is 0.10 percent.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between U.S. price and NV may vary from the percentage
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions
directly to Customs.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of WSSP from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act:
(1) The cash deposit rate for Ta Chen will be zero percent, in
light of its de minimis weighted-average margin;
(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies other than Ta
Chen, 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 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 this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 19.84 percent. See Amended Final Determination and
Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From
Taiwan, 57 FR 62300 (December 30, 1992). These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final
results of the next administrative review.
All U.S. sales by the respondent Ta Chen will be subject to one
deposit rate according to the proceeding. The cash deposit rate has
been determined on the basis of the selling price to the first
unrelated customer in the United States. For appraisement purposes,
where information is available, we will use the entered value of the
subject merchandise to determine importer-specific appraisement rates.
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 the 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
the return or 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(l)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: July 8, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18882 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
