[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32070]

[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 3, 1994]




Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Iron Construction Castings From Canada

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import 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 11 manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period March 1, 1992, 
through February 28, 1993. For these preliminary results, we applied 
best information available (BIA) for 10 of the manufacturers/exporters. 
The review indicates the existence of dumping margins during the 
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.

Lisa Raisner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, 
telephone: (202) 482-3518.



    On March 5, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(51 FR 17220) the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings 
from Canada. The petitioner requested in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(a) that we conduct an administrative review. We published the 
notice of initiation on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960). The Department has 
now conducted 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 iron 
construction castings from Canada, 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, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050 and 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 Ltd., Bibby Foundry Ltd., Bibby 
Waterworks Inc., Dobney Foundry Ltd., Fonderie Bibby St. Croix, LaPerle 
Foundry Division (LaPerle), McCoy Foundry Company, Penticton Foundry 
Ltd., Titan Foundry Ltd., Titan Supply Ltd., and Trojan Industries, 
Inc., during the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.


    We received only one questionnaire response, and that was from 
LaPerle. Based on our analysis of this response, we have determined 
that LaPerle is related to other respondents in this review. 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 for 
Spain, 53 FR 24335, 1988; Certain Granite Products for 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 
     Interlocking boards of directors;
     Similar production processes, facilities or equipment so 
as to facilitate shifting of production between facilities;
     Do not operate as separate and distinct entities;
     Share of marketing and sales information or offices; and
     Involvement in the pricing or production decisions of the 
other entity.
    In conducting our analysis of related parties in this review, we 
issued two 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. In addition, it did not consolidate all information 
for itself, including information for its U.S. affiliate(s) and related 
home market or third country firms whose information would be used in 
this review, as outlined in our questionnaire. Therefore, we have 
determined that LaPerle significantly impeded the proceedings. LaPerle 
was deemed uncooperative and, in accordance with section 776(c) of the 
Tariff Act, we applied BIA to LaPerle and its related parties.

Best Information Available

    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we have used 
BIA in cases where a party refused or was unable to produce information 
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise 
significantly impeded these proceedings. The Department generally uses 
a two-tiered approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative 
respondents or respondents who substantially impede the proceedings 
(first tier), the Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate 
for any company from the original investigation or prior administrative 
review or (2) the highest rate found in the current review for any 
company. For respondents which attempt to cooperate (second tier), the 
Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to 
the firm for the subject merchandise or (2) the highest calculated rate 
in the current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings (Other 
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58 
FR 39729, July 26, 1993). For parties refusing to respond or parties 
who substantially impeded the administrative review, the first-tier BIA 
rate we applied in these preliminary results is 9.9 percent, which is 
the highest of the rates found 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 the above 
companies, see the analysis memorandum.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that margins 
exist for the period March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993, as 

               Manufacturer/Exporter                    Percent Margin  
Associated Foundry Ltd..............................                 9.9
Bibby Foundry Ltd...................................                 9.9
Bibby Waterworks Inc................................                 9.9
Dobney Foundry Ltd..................................                 9.9
Fonderie Bibby St. Croix............................                 9.9
LaPerle Foundry, Inc................................                 9.9
McCoy Foundry Company...............................              \1\7.5
Penticton Foundry Ltd...............................                 9.9
Titan Foundry Ltd...................................                 9.9
Titan Supply Ltd....................................                 9.9
Trojan Industries, Inc..............................                 9.9
\1\No shipments during the period; since there was no prior review of   
  this company, we assigned the all other rate from the less-than-fair- 
  value (LTFV) investigation.                                           

    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 in any such written comments or 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.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective, 
upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative 
review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(1) 
of the Tariff Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those 
established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be their company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review or the original 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, the cash deposit rate will be 7.5 percent, 
which is the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, 
as discussed below.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul 
Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-
83, decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a 
company, it can only be changed through an administrative review. The 
Department has determined that in order to implement these decisions, 
it is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders.
    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 

    Dated: December 23, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 93-32070 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]