[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49585-49587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23790]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-605]
Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan; Final Results
of Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 22, 1994, The Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1992-1993
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel
butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. The review covers four
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States
during the period December 1, 1992, through November 30, 1993. Our
review indicates the existence of dumping margins.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we
have adjusted the margins of two manufacturers for these final results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlo G. Cavagna or Zev Primor, 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 December 17, 1986, the Department published in the Federal
Register (51 FR 45152) the antidumping duty order on carbon steel butt-
weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. On November 26, 1993, the Department
published (58 FR 62327) a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the period
December 1, 1992, through November 30, 1993. The Department received a
timely request from the petitioner, the U.S. Butt-Weld Fittings
Committee, to review C.M. Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (C.M.),
Rigid Industries Co., Ltd. (Rigid), Chup Hsin Enterprises (Chup Hsin),
and Gei Bey Corporation (Gei Bey). The Department initiated an
administrative review on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2593).
On December 22, 1994, the Department published in the Federal
Register (59 FR 66001) the preliminary results of its administrative
review. The period of review (POR) covers December 1, 1992, through
November 30, 1993.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department has completed these administrative reviews in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to
the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of carbon steel butt-
weld type pipe fittings, other than couplings, under 14 inches in
inside diameter, whether finished or unfinished, that have been formed
in the shape of elbows, tees, reducers, and caps, and if forged, have
been advanced after forging. These advancements may include one or more
of the following: coining, heat treatment, shot blasting, grinding, die
stamping, or painting.
Carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings are currently classifiable
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7307.93.3000. The
HTS subheading is provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to the scope
of the product coverage.
Best Information Available
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have determined
that the use of best information otherwise available (BIA) is
appropriate for certain firms. The Department's regulations provide
that we may take into account whether a party refuses to provide
information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). For purposes of these reviews, we have
used the most adverse BIA--generally, the highest rate for any company
for this same class or kind of merchandise from this or any prior
segment of the proceeding--whenever a company refused to cooperate with
the Department or otherwise significantly impeded the proceeding. See
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany, et. al.; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 31692, 31704 (July 11,
[[Page 49586]]
1991); see also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States 996 F.2d
1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Because Chup Hsin and Gei Bey failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we have used the highest rate ever found in this
proceeding to establish their margins. This rate is 87.30 percent,
which was also used for these two firms in the LTFV investigation when
they failed to respond in that stage of the proceeding. Chup Hsin and
Gei Bey did not comment on the use of BIA in the preliminary results of
this administrative review.
Analysis of Comments Received
We received case and rebuttal briefs from C.M., Rigid, and from the
petitioner, the U.S. Butt-Weld Fittings Committee. These comments are
summarized and analyzed below.
General Comments
Comment 1: C.M. and Rigid contend that, for the preliminary
results, the Department incorrectly deducted U.S. commissions and U.S.
direct selling expenses from U.S. price (USP), rather than adding them
to foreign market value (FMV).
Department's Position: We agree with C.M. and Rigid that U.S.
selling expenses and commissions should not have been deducted from
USP, and instead should have been added to FMV. We have corrected our
error for both C.M. and Rigid.
Comment 2: Petitioner argues that no adjustment for the 5% Taiwan
VAT was made for any margin calculations involving constructed value.
As a result, Petitioner concludes that the preliminary dumping margins
calculated by the Department are understated. Rigid responds that the
Department made the correct VAT adjustments for the preliminary
results.
Department's Position: We disagree with Petitioner. The Department
does not adjust for VAT in comparisons involving constructed value.
See, e.g., Avesta Sheffield, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 94-53, at
2 (March 31, 1994). However, upon review of the preliminary margin
programs for Rigid and C.M., it appears that a VAT adjustment was made
to USP in cases where FMV was based on constructed value. For these
final results, we have not made a VAT adjustment to either USP or FMV
where FMV is based on constructed value.
Comment 3: Petitioner asserts that, for the preliminary results,
the Department failed to deduct indirect selling expenses from home
market price (HMP) for the purposes of conducting the below cost test.
Petitioner suggests that the Department should deduct indirect selling
expenses from HMP and total cost of production (COP). Rigid responds
that because indirect selling expenses are built into its reported COP,
it is not necessary to deduct them from HMP.
Department's Position: We disagree with Petitioner. As noted by
Rigid, indirect selling expenses are included in both the COP and HMP
reported by Rigid and C.M. (See C.M. Response to Section VIII of the
Questionnaire (August 10, 1994), at 24 and at exhibit D-13; see also
Rigid Response to the Questionnaire (April 6, 1994), at 42 and at
exhibit 13.) Therefore, it is not necessary to deduct indirect selling
expenses from either HMP or COP to ensure that an accurate comparison
is being made.
Comments Regarding C.M. Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co.
Comment 4: C.M. alleges that the Department's margin and cost
programs for the preliminary results incorrectly deleted several home-
market sales from C.M.'s home market database due to a programming
error.
Department's Position: We agree with C.M. and have corrected this
error.
Comment 5: C.M. argues that the Department's margin program for the
preliminary results incorrectly calculated imputed credit for U.S.
sales based on sale dates, rather than shipment dates.
Department's Position: We agree, and have recalculated C.M.'s U.S.
imputed credit expenses based on shipment dates.
Comment 6: Petitioner argues that C.M.'s preliminary margin program
shows that the Department was not able to calculate margins for a small
number of U.S. sales because they could not be matched to an FMV.
Petitioner states that C.M.'s failure to report FMVs for these sales
warrants the application of BIA to these sales.
Department's Position: We agree with Petitioner that C.M.'s
preliminary margin program did not calculate margins for a small number
of U.S. sales. However, we disagree that the use of BIA is warranted.
The problem outlined by Petitioner was caused by a programming error in
C.M.'s preliminary margin program (see Comment 4) and has been
corrected for these final results.
Comment Regarding Rigid Industries:
Comment 7: Petitioner argues that the Department's preliminary
margin program failed to properly adjust FMV for the 5% Taiwan value-
added tax (VAT) in price-to-price comparisons. Rigid responds that the
Department's Preliminary Results Analysis Memorandum states that both
USP and FMV were adjusted for the 5% and that no other adjustment is
necessary.
Department's Position: Although the Preliminary Results Analysis
Memorandum states that both USP and FMV were adjusted for the 5% Taiwan
VAT (see Memorandum to the File, December 27, 1994), only USP was
adjusted in the preliminary margin program. We have corrected this
error for the final results by adjusting both USP and FMV for the 5%
VAT in price-to-price comparisons, in accordance with our practice as
outlined in Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994).
Final Results of Review
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine
that the following margins exist for the period December 1, 1992,
through November 30, 1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chup Hsin Enterprises........................................ 87.30
C.M. Pipe Fittings........................................... 5.55
Gei Bey Corporation.......................................... 87.30
Rigid Industries............................................. 4.38
All Others................................................... 49.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall instruct the U.S. Customs Service to liquidate
all appropriate entries. Individual differences between USP and FMV may
vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue
appraisement instructions with respect to each exporter.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be those
rates established in these final results; (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, but
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established
in this review for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and
[[Page 49587]]
(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 rates will be 49.46%, the all other rate established in the
LTFV investigation (51 FR 37772). These deposit requirements will
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) 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 subject to sanction.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23790 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
