[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19539]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-503]
Certain Iron Construction Castings From Canada; 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 by the Municipal Castings Fair Trade
Council and its individually-named members (petitioner), the Department
of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from Canada.
The review covers four manufacturers/exporters of the subject
merchandise to the United States during the period March 1, 1991,
through February 29, 1992. For these preliminary results, we applied
best information available (BIA) for all four of the manufacturers/
exporters. The review indicates the existence of dumping margins during
the period.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202)
482-6312/3814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 5, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from Canada (51
FR 7890). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) the petitioner requested
an administrative review of four manufacturers/exporters. We published
the notice of initiation on April 13, 1992 (57 FR 12797). The
Department is now conducting that administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff
Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain heavy and
light iron construction castings. Heavy castings, are limited to
manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basin grates and frames,
cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for
public utility, water, and sanitary systems, from Canada, classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010 and
7325.10.0050. Light castings are limited to valve, service, and meter
boxes which are placed below ground to encase water, gas, or other
valves, or water and gas meters, classifiable as light castings under
HTS item numbers 8306.29.0000 and 8310.00.0000. The HTS item numbers
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written
description remains dispositive.
This review covers sales of certain Canadian iron construction
castings by Associated Foundry (Associated), Fonderie LaPerle/LaPerle
Foundry Division (LaPerle), Penticton Foundry Ltd. (Penticton), and
Titan Foundry Ltd. (Titan), during the period March 1, 1991, through
February 29, 1992.
Analysis
We received only one questionnaire response, and that was from
LaPerle. Based on our analysis of LaPerle's response, we have
determined that LaPerle is related to other manufacturers/exporters for
which it did not provide information. LaPerle and its related entities
meet all five criteria, in addition to ownership, that the Department
considers in determining whether to collapse related parties, as laid
out in Certain Granite Products from Spain, 53 FR 24335, 1988; Certain
Granite Products from Italy 53 FR 27187, 1988; Steel Wheels from
Brazil, 54 FR 8780, 1989; Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies
from Japan, 54 FR 48011, 1989; and Final Determinations of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon
Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR 37099 (July 9, 1993). The five criteria,
in addition to ownership, are as follows:
Whether companies have interlocking boards of directors
Whether companies have similar production processes,
facilities or equipment so as to facilitate shifting of production
between facilities
Whether companies operate as separate and distinct
entities
Whether companies share marketing and sales information or
offices
Whether companies are involved in the pricing or
production decisions of the other entity
Based on our analysis of these criteria, the information on the
record indicates that 13 other companies, in addition to those included
in the notice of initiation of administrative review, are sufficiently
related to be collapsed. It is our preliminary determination LaPerle
and all its related companies should be treated as a single entity.
(For more information see the analysis memorandum for the preliminary
results.) Therefore, in effect, we are now conducting a review of one
single company, comprised of various individual components, including
LaPerle.
Best Information Available
In conducting our analysis of related parties in this review, we
issued three supplemental questionnaires and granted extensions for
several of the responses. In spite of this, LaPerle did not provide us
with enough information to adequately support its position as an
independent entity. Because none of the individual components of this
entity responded to our questionnaire, other than LaPerle, and because
LaPerle, as the responding party, failed to submit a consolidated
response, only a small fraction of the required information was
provided.
Although LaPerle has provided a partial response to our
questionnaire, LaPerle has not submitted a response consolidating all
information for all parties related to it, and we are not able to use
LaPerle's responses for purposes of this review. Therefore, we have
considered LaPerle uncooperative. The application of first-tier BIA is
appropriate because LaPerle has impeded the proceeding by failing to
give the Department the information necessary to conduct the review and
by failing to provide sufficient support that it was independent.
Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, and
the Department's practice (see Antifriction Bearing (Other than Tapered
Roller Bearings) and Parts from France, et al., 58 FR 39729, July 26,
1993, we have applied first-tier BIA to the entity as a whole. The
first-tier BIA rate in this case is 9.8 percent, which is the highest
of the rates for any firm in the original investigation (see Iron
Construction Castings from Canada; Amendment to Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order,
51 FR 34110, September 25, 1986).
For more information on these BIA applications to each component of
the entity, see the analysis memorandum.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average margins exist, and have been applied based
on relationship and/or failure to respond, for the period March 1, 1991
through February 29, 1992:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated.................................................... 9.8
LaPerle....................................................... 9.8
Penticton 9.8
Titan 9.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and 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 business day thereafter. Case
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised when submitted in written form, or mentioned
at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the
Customs Service.
Because we have completed to review for the period, March 1, 1992,
through February 28, 1993, the cash deposit requirement for merchandise
subject to the order will not be changed by the final results of this
administrative review, except in the case of two of the entity's
components. Moreover, since there were no requests for reviews of other
companies which were related to LaPerle, entries of all the additional
firms' merchandise have been liquidated in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(e). Therefore, only two of the companies not included in the
notice of initiation will have cash deposit rates established by this
administrative review. Accordingly, for these two firms we will
instruct Customs to require cash deposits of 9.8 percent, the rate
assigned to the entire entity.
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
These administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22(c).
Dated: July 30, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-19539 Filed 8-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
