[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7715]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 31, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-814]

 

Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the People's 
Republic of China; Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of 
Antidumping Duty Order

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of 
Antidumping Duty Order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 3, 1994, the Department of Commerce published a 
preliminary affirmative determination of circumvention of the 
antidumping duty order on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings 
(pipe fittings) from the People's Republic of China.
    We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary affirmative determination. After our analysis of the case 
and rebuttal briefs, we have determined that imports into the United 
States of pipe fittings that were finished in Thailand from unfinished 
pipe fittings produced in the People's Republic of China constitute 
circumvention of the antidumping duty order on certain carbon steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China, within the 
meaning of section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. As a 
result, we determine that pipe fittings that were finished in Thailand 
from unfinished pipe fittings produced in the People's Republic of 
China fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on certain 
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from the People's Republic of 
China.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 3, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (59 FR 62) a preliminary affirmative 
determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty order on certain 
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC). Pursuant to this determination, the Department 
instructed the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to suspend liquidation 
of, and require cash deposits on, entries of the imported product as 
defined in the ``Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry'' section of 
this notice. In accordance with section 781(e) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the Department also notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary affirmative 
determination. In response, the ITC notified the Department that 
consultations between the Department and the ITC on this issue are not 
necessary. See letter from ITC Chairman Don E. Newquist to Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Joseph A. Spetrini, dated March 21, 1994.
    The Department has now completed this inquiry in accordance with 
section 781(b) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(j)(b)), and 19 CFR 
353.29(f) (1993).

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    Imports covered by the antidumping duty order are shipments of 
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, having an inside diameter of less 
than 14 inches, imported in either finished or unfinished form. These 
formed or forged pipe fittings are used to join sections in piping 
systems where conditions require permanent, welded connections, as 
distinguished from fittings based on other fastening methods (e.g., 
threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings). Carbon steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings are currently classified under subheading 7307.93.30 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    The products subject to this circumvention inquiry are pipe 
fittings, as described above in the ``Scope of the Antidumping Duty 
Order'' section, which are exported in unfinished form from the PRC to 
Thailand, where some finishing is performed.

Nature of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

    As set forth in our preliminary determination, we examined whether 
(1) pipe fittings finished in Thailand and sold in the United States 
were of the same class or kind as those covered by the antidumping duty 
order on pipe fittings from the PRC, (2) pipe fittings finished in 
Thailand and exported to the United States were completed from 
unfinished pipe fittings manufactured in the PRC, and (3) the 
difference between the value of the unfinished pipe fittings from the 
PRC and the finished pipe fittings sold in the United States was small, 
as required by section 781(b)(1) of the Tariff Act.
    In reaching a conclusion as to whether the difference in value was 
small, we based our analysis of the difference in the value on (1) a 
quantitative analysis of the value of the finishing process in 
Thailand, and (2) a qualitative analysis of the nature of the 
processing performed in Thailand, and the level of investment in 
Thailand. Further, in determining whether to include merchandise 
assembled or completed in Thailand within the order, we analyzed 
changes in the pattern of trade, the relationship between the Chinese 
manufacturer and the Thai finisher, and changes in volume of imports of 
unfinished pipe fittings into Thailand, pursuant to section 781(b)(2) 
of the Tariff Act. (See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
from the People's Republic of China; Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 59 FR 62 
(January 3, 1994).)

Final Calculation of Difference in Value

    As in our preliminary determination, we calculated the difference 
in value percentage by dividing the value added in Thailand by the 
value of the completed merchandise. In our final analysis, we used the 
net selling price of pipe fittings to the United States to represent 
the value of the completed merchandise. We deducted freight and 
insurance to derive the net selling price of the completed merchandise.
    We revised the cost of manufacturing used to determine the value 
added in Thailand in order to correct for certain clerical errors found 
by the Department or noted by Awaji Sangyo (Thailand) (AST) at 
verification. We also adjusted the cost of manufacturing for labor 
bonus expenses submitted at the beginning of verification. In addition, 
we excluded from our calculation of the difference in value certain 
pipe fittings which were found not to be of Chinese origin. (See March 
21, 1994 analysis memo from the case analyst to the file.)
    We found that the value added in Thailand is 18 percent of the 
value of the completed merchandise. (Since the precise figure is 
business proprietary, the stated percentage is within a range of plus 
or minus 10 percent.) See March 21, 1994 analysis memorandum from the 
case analyst to the file. In order to determine whether 18 percent is 
``small'' within the meaning of the Tariff Act, we examined the nature 
of the processing performed in Thailand and the level of investment in 
Thailand. (See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China; Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 59 FR 62.) As stated in the 
preliminary determination, we have determined that the finishing 
operations performed to finish unfinished tees provide limited value to 
the finished tee relative to the production process used to manufacture 
the unfinished tee. Moreover, the level of investment required to 
produce unfinished tees is significant when compared to that required 
to finish the unfinished tee. Accordingly, we determine that the 
calculated difference in value percentage is ``small'' within the 
meaning of section 781(b) of the Tariff Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
affirmative determination of circumvention on pipe fittings from the 
PRC. We received a case brief from the respondent, AST, and a rebuttal 
brief from the petitioner, the U.S. Fittings Group (an ad hoc trade 
association of domestic producers of pipe fittings currently consisting 
of: Hackney, Inc.; Ladish Company, Inc.; L.A. Boiler Works, Inc.; Mill 
Iron Works, Inc.; Steel Forgings, Inc.; and Tube Forgings of America, 
Inc.). We held a public hearing on March 8, 1994. All comments and 
rebuttal arguments properly raised by the parties to the proceeding are 
discussed below.
    Comment 1: AST asserts that at the time it considered converting 
tees, it relied upon U.S. customs law, under which converting 
unfinished fittings into completed form has been held to constitute 
``substantial transformation'' of the unfinished product and to confer 
a new country of origin. AST states that the decision to convert tees 
preceded the Chinese antidumping petition and that after the 
antidumping order on Chinese pipe fittings AST continued to rely on the 
Customs ruling.
    AST cites the Customs case Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United 
States, 313 F. Supp. 951 (Cust. Ct. 1970). In Midwood Industries, the 
Customs Court held that the manufacturing processes applied to 
unfinished fittings to convert them to finished goods constituted a 
``transformation of such imported articles into different articles 
having a new name, character and use.'' 313 F. Supp. at 957. Although 
AST recognizes that the Department's definition of scope is not bound 
by U.S. Customs law, AST believes the Department should avoid creating 
tension and confusion between Commerce and Customs laws.
    Department's Position: As AST states, our definitions of scope and 
country of origin are not bound by U.S. customs law. Under section 
781(b) of the Tariff Act, the Department must examine specific criteria 
to determine whether merchandise circumvents an antidumping order, and 
is bound by those criteria in making its determination. In addition, 
the Court of International Trade (CIT) has held that the Department is 
not bound by Customs classification determinations. See Diversified 
Products v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 887 (CIT 1983); and Royal 
Business Machines v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 1007, 1014 (CIT 1980). 
As to AST's argument that the decision to convert tees preceded the 
antidumping petition on pipe fittings from China, there is no 
requirement in the statute or regulations that completion or assembly 
in a third country begin only after the antidumping order is issued in 
order to include pipe fittings finished in Thailand.
    Comment 2: AST states that its U.S. exports for the entire class or 
kind of merchandise, including elbows and reducers, increased 
significantly after the Thai and Chinese orders, citing Exhibit 6 of 
its November 23, 1993 response. AST contends that the Department's 
analysis of the pattern of trade failed to consider that AST's exports 
to the United States after the Thai order increased naturally because 
AST was excluded from the Thai order and its exports were therefore 
free from cash deposits, while Chinese companies and other Thai 
companies stopped exporting to the United States because their imports 
were subject to cash deposits. AST argues that the Department focused 
exclusively on the mathematical calculation in considering the pattern 
of trade, without considering the rational commercial reasons for the 
increase in exports.
    AST also argues that the Department's calculation of the increase 
in AST's exports is skewed because it was based on kilograms rather 
than on pieces. AST states that the large differences in weight among 
the various sizes of fittings does not yield a meaningful comparison of 
export volumes. AST's product mix shifted to larger pieces after the 
order, with a greater weight per fitting ratio. AST states that the 
increase in exports, as measured in pieces, is ``a far cry from 
increase levels in prior cases where the Department has found 
circumvention to exist,'' citing Color Picture Tubes from Canada, 
Japan, Korea, and Singapore; Negative Preliminary Determination, 55 FR 
52066 (December 19, 1990) and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 
from Italy; Affirmative Preliminary Determination, 57 FR 43218 
(September 18, 1992).
    Department's Position: We recognize that an antidumping duty order 
will sometimes precipitate a shift in trading patterns, with low-rate 
or excluded companies gaining some of the market lost by companies with 
higher dumping cash deposit rates. Such a shift does not in and of 
itself mean that circumvention has occurred. Rather, we investigate the 
causes and nature of the shift in our determination of whether 
circumvention has occurred. For example, increased capacity utilization 
could be a normal commercial response of an excluded company to an 
antidumping duty order. However, if the excluded company's increased 
exports are the result of transmitting subject merchandise from another 
company covered by an order, we might conclude that this pattern of 
trade supports a finding of circumvention. In this case, we found that 
there was a significant increase in tees finished from unfinished 
Chinese tees and exported to the United States. Therefore, the nature 
of the shift in the pattern of trade suggests that it is the result of 
circumvention.
    Furthermore, AST's statement that its exports to the United States 
of the entire class or kind of merchandise increased after the order 
cannot be substantiated by Exhibit 6 of the November 23, 1993 response. 
This exhibit gives only annual totals for exports of all pipe fittings 
to the United States. We cannot make a reasonable comparison of the 
period after the order, July 1992 through September 1993, with the 
comparable period before the order, May 1991 through June 1992, on the 
basis of annual figures. For example, we have no way of knowing what 
portion of the 1992 exports occurred before the July 6, 1992 
antidumping order, and what portion occurred after the antidumping 
order. Also, we would not know what portion of the 1991 annual exports 
occurred during May through December 1991.
    We disagree with AST's assertion that kilograms do not provide a 
reasonable measurement of its volume of exports of pipe fittings to the 
United States and of the extent to which AST's exports have increased 
since the issuance of the order. In this case, the Department has 
determined that kilograms constitute a reasonable measure of volume. 
U.S. Customs and the Thai government use kilograms as their measure of 
volume in keeping their trade statistics, suggesting that kilograms is 
a reasonable measure. In addition, AST allocates many of the its 
expenses on a kilogram basis rather than pieces.
    The record shows that AST's product mix shifted from smaller to 
larger pipe fittings after the issuance of the order. The Department 
has concluded that kilograms more accurately reflect the shift in AST's 
exports from smaller to larger pipe fittings. Measuring in kilograms 
takes into account the large raw material differences, as well as value 
differences, among various sizes of pipe fittings. Measuring in pieces 
masks increases in size, weight, and value of pipe fittings exports. 
Moreover, regardless which unit of measure, i.e., pieces or kilograms, 
is used, the volume of exports to the United States has increased 
significantly. AST's comparison of the difference in exports in this 
inquiry and Color Picture Tubes from Canada, Japan, Korea, and 
Singapore; Negative Preliminary Determination, 55 FR 52066 and Granular 
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, 57 43218 (PTFE) is mistaken. 
In accordance with the statute, the Department's analyses in 
circumvention inquiries are conducted on a case by case basis, and it 
may not be appropriate to compare the facts of one case to those of 
another. For instance, the fact that the exports in PTFE resin 
increased nearly four-fold does not indicate that a similar increase 
must be found in a different case in order to justify an affirmative 
circumvention determination.
    Comment 3: AST states that the Department considers the likelihood 
of circumvention to be greater if the manufacturer of the unfinished 
merchandise is related to the third country assembler. AST also states 
that the Department has considered the related-party factor a critical 
element in its evaluation in past circumvention inquires, citing Color 
Picture Tubes from Canada, Japan, Korea and Singapore; Negative Final 
Circumvention Determination, 56 FR 9667 (March 7, 1991). AST urges the 
Department to take this factor into account in its analysis.
    Department's Position: While the Department has noted that it is 
``more likely'' for related parties to engage in circumvention 
activity, a relationship between the Chinese manufacturer and Thai 
converter/exporter is not a necessary condition for finding 
circumvention. Relationship among parties is not a mandatory criterion, 
but a qualitative ``factor to consider'' under 19 CFR 353.29(f)(2). Not 
all of the qualitative factors have to indicate circumvention in order 
for the Department to make an affirmative circumvention determination. 
To do so would run counter to the statute, which does not require that 
all three factors be present to find circumvention. Indeed, if all 
three had to be met, they would be mandatory criteria, such as those in 
section 781(b)(1), not ``factors to consider,'' and there would be no 
need to list them separately in 781(b)(2). It is possible for 
circumvention to occur between unrelated companies.
    In addition, the factor of relationship was not a ``key'' or 
``critical'' factor in the circumvention inquiries on color picture 
tubes (CPTs). On the contrary, in the CPT circumvention inquiries the 
Department specifically investigated unrelated companies, and made its 
negative determinations on other grounds. (See Color Picture Tubes from 
Canada, Japan, Korea and Singapore, Negative Final Circumvention 
Determination, 56 FR 9667.) Furthermore, the Department found 
circumvention between unrelated parties in Brass Sheet and Strip from 
Canada, Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 33610.
    Comment 4: AST argues that the Department erroneously concluded 
that the increase in exports from Shenzhen Fittings Manufacturing 
Factory (Shenzhen Factory) in the PRC to Thailand corresponds to the 
increase in exports of tees from AST to the United States. AST states 
that the majority of the number of pieces of unfinished tees imported 
from China were shipped to another Thai importer. AST also states that 
the number of pieces of unfinished Chinese tees it imported declined 
after the order, and therefore any increase in the total number of 
pieces imported into Thailand are unrelated to the increase in AST's 
finished tees exports to the United States. Moreover, AST argues that 
the Department should use data from the 18 months prior to the 
antidumping order in its analysis, since the record contains export 
data from January 1991 to August 1993.
    Department's Position: The record shows that imports of unfinished 
pipe fittings from Shenzhen Factory to AST declined only if one uses 
pieces, rather than kilograms, and compares the 18-month period before 
the issuance of the order to the 14-month period after the order, as 
AST has done. This comparison conceals the nature of the volume of 
imports and is not a reasonable comparison of time periods. The 
antidumping order was issued on July 6, 1992. Because we initiated a 
circumvention inquiry and issued circumvention questionnaires in 
September 1993, we gathered post-order data on imports for the period 
July 1992 through September 1993, a 14-month period. Therefore, we 
compared that data with import data for the 14 months prior to the 
antidumping order, that is, for the period May 1, 1991 through June 30, 
1992. It would be unreasonable to compare an 18-month period to a 14-
month period, as AST advocates. In addition, AST has relied on pieces 
rather than kilograms in its argument. We believe that kilograms are a 
better measure of the volume of trade than are pieces. See our response 
to Comment 2, above. Regardless of the unit of measure, there is a 
clear increase of imports of pipe fittings to Thailand, as well as an 
increase to AST, after the issuance of the antidumping duty order, when 
equal time periods are compared. See March 21, 1994 analysis memo from 
the case analyst to the file.
    Comment 5: AST asserts that, in its calculation of the difference 
in value, the Department's use of CIF selling prices for the value of 
the completed merchandise was in error. (The Department determined the 
difference in value by dividing Thai finishing costs by the value of 
the completed merchandise sold in the United States.) The CIF price 
included freight and insurance costs, while the Thai finishing cost 
data did not include these costs. Therefore, AST contends, the use of 
CIF selling prices dilutes the percentage of Thai completion. AST 
argues that this skews the comparison of unfinished and finished 
merchandise values, increasing the probability that the value added by 
Thai finishing will be deemed ``small.'' AST urges the Department to 
use ex-factory prices as the value of the completed merchandise.
    AST further states that the Department has consistently used ex-
factory selling prices as the value of the completed merchandise in 
prior circumvention inquiries and has no reason to divert from that 
practice now.
    Department's Position: We agree with AST. For the final 
determination, we have adjusted the gross CIF selling price by 
deducting the freight and insurance expenses to arrive at the net 
selling price (ex-factory) of the completed merchandise. We find that 
the recalculated difference in value is still small. (See March 21, 
1994 analysis memo from the case analyst to the file.)
    Comment 6: AST argues that the Department should allocate to AST's 
cost of manufacturing for pipe fittings a portion of the selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred by the Butt-Weld 
Division of Awaji Sangyo K.K. (ASK), which is AST's parent company in 
Japan. ASK's Butt-Weld Division sells AST's pipe fittings in the 
Japanese domestic market. AST notes that the Department included a 
portion of the SG&A expenses of ASK's Tokyo office, which handles AST's 
export sales, in determining the value of the finishing processes in 
Thailand.
    Department's Position: We disagree with AST that a portion of ASK's 
Butt-Weld Division's SG&A should be included in determining the value 
of the finishing processes in Thailand for merchandise exported to the 
United States. The record shows that all of the SG&A expenses in Japan 
that related to export sales of AST's pipe fittings were incurred at 
the Tokyo office. See November 23, 1993 AST response at 10. Therefore, 
we allocated a portion of the total Tokyo office SG&A expenses to AST's 
pipe fittings subject to this inquiry. However, the Butt-Weld 
Division's SG&A expenses were incurred only for selling AST's Thai-
manufactured pipe fittings in the Japanese domestic market. See 
November 23, 1993 AST response at 10. Expenses incurred for ASK's 
Japanese domestic sales should not be allocated to the sales of AST's 
pipe fittings in the United States.
    Comment 7: AST argues that the stated purpose of the anti-
circumvention law is to prevent evasion of an antidumping duty order 
duty or finding, not to penalize foreign producers for their past 
action. AST states that it has ceased importing Chinese tees since 
March 1993 and will soon begin commercial production of tees in an 
integrated process from steel pipe, making it unnecessary to import 
unfinished tees from any source. Further, AST states that it will not 
be importing unfinished tees from China, since its Chinese supplier has 
ceased operation. AST argues that the foregoing facts preclude any 
reasons for AST's evasion of the Chinese order in the future and 
nullifies the necessity for the importer certification program.
    Department's Position: We agree with AST that the purpose of the 
anti-circumvention law is to prevent evasion of antidumping duty orders 
and findings, and it is for this reason that we have instituted the 
import certification program. When we have determined that 
circumvention has occurred, we must take action to prevent continuing 
circumvention. In this case, the statutory and regulatory provisions 
for a finding of circumvention have been met. In addition, we have 
designed our certification requirement in such a way that entries of 
pipe fittings imported into the United States from Thailand will not be 
suspended if the importer can certify that they were not produced from 
unfinished Chinese pipe fittings. Thus, entries of pipe fittings 
produced by AST in an integrated process from steel pipe will not be 
subject to suspension, as long as the importer provides the appropriate 
certification.
    We also note that AST's statement that it will have no reason to 
evade the Chinese order in the future does not assure us that there 
will not be continued circumvention of the order. Our verification at 
AST revealed that AST had unfinished Chinese tees remaining in its 
inventory at the end of 1993. See February 25, 1994 AST verification 
report. Absent a finding of circumvention, AST could finish these pipe 
fittings and export them to the United States free of antidumping 
duties. AST could also resume finishing of Chinese unfinished tees to 
supplement its tee production. In order to prevent circumvention, we 
must (1) order the suspension of entries of pipe fittings from AST, 
absent certification that such pipe fittings have not been produced 
from unfinished Chinese pipe fittings, and (2) require such 
certification for imports from all Thai exporters, so that the 
appropriate antidumping duties can ultimately be collected.
    Comment 8: Petitioner states in its rebuttal brief that AST 
implicitly claimed that the Department has no basis to institute an 
anti-circumvention inquiry with respect to the antidumping duty order 
on pipe fittings from Japan. According to petitioner's account of AST's 
argument, AST bases this assertion on its statement that unfinished 
pipe fittings are not covered by the Japanese order.
    Petitioner claims that there is enough evidence on the public 
record in the PRC anti-circumvention inquiry for the Department to 
institute an anti-circumvention inquiry on the Japanese order.
    Department's Position: The question of possible circumvention of 
the Japanese order on pipe fittings is not germane to the issue of 
whether the PRC order on pipe fittings has been circumvented. 
Furthermore, if petitioner believes that there is evidence that the 
order on pipe fittings from Japan is being circumvented, sufficient to 
warrant an anti-circumvention inquiry, then petitioner should request 
that the Department conduct such an inquiry, in accordance with CFR 
353.29(b). We note that petitioner filed such a request with the 
Department on March 22, 1994.

Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention

    After consideration of the factors discussed above, we have 
determined that circumvention of the antidumping duty order on pipe 
fittings from the PRC has occurred within the meaning of section 781(b) 
of the Tariff Act. We base this determination on the statutory 
criteria. First, the items completed in Thailand and sold to the United 
States are of the same class or kind of merchandise as that covered by 
the order, and are completed from merchandise produced in the PRC and 
covered by the order. Second, the difference in value between the 
unfinished pipe fittings sold to Thailand and the value of the finished 
pipe fittings exported to the United States is small. We note that our 
determination of ``small'' in this case is not necessarily synonymous 
with the determination of ``small'' that the Department has used in the 
past or that the Department will use in future anti-circumvention 
inquiries, because Congress has directed us to make such determinations 
on a case-by-case basis. Further, we find that the pattern of trade and 
level of imports into Thailand indicate a finding of circumvention of 
the antidumping duty order. Based on the record for this inquiry, we 
also find that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of the 
antidumping duty order. To this end, a finding of circumvention for a 
product within a class or kind indicates that the criteria for finding 
circumvention are met by and, therefore, apply to all manufacturers/
exporters of the class or kind of merchandise (i.e., pipe fittings) 
subject to the certification requirements described below.
    This does not preclude a Thai manufacturer from making an 
affirmative showing that its merchandise, or a portion thereof, does 
not meet the criteria for finding circumvention. Such a showing must be 
made on an analysis that follows, as closely as possible, the analysis 
made in the affirmative circumvention determination.

Requirement of Certification

    Considered within the scope of the antidumping duty order on pipe 
fittings from the PRC are all imports from all producers into the 
United States of pipe fittings from Thailand, as defined in the ``Scope 
of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry'' section of this notice, unless 
accompanied by a certificate stating that such pipe fittings have not 
been produced from unfinished Chinese pipe fittings.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.29(j)(2), we are directing the U.S. 
Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
pipe fittings from Thailand. The merchandise subject to suspension of 
liquidation is pipe fittings, as defined in the ``Scope of the Anti-
Circumvention Inquiry'' section of this notice, that are entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 3, 1994, 
the date of publication of the preliminary affirmative circumvention 
determination in the Federal Register. (We note that entries of pipe 
fittings from Thailand, with the exception of AST's pipe fittings, are 
currently being suspended pursuant to the antidumping duty order on 
pipe fittings from Thailand (57 FR 29702, July 6, 1992).) For all such 
imports which are accompanied by a certificate stating that such pipe 
fittings have not been produced from unfinished Chinese pipe fittings, 
the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a 
bond in the amount of the company-specific rate for the Thai 
manufacturer/exporter, or, if there is no company-specific rate for the 
Thai manufacturer or exporter, the ``All Others'' rate for pipe 
fittings from Thailand. For all such imports which are accompanied by a 
certificate stating that the merchandise was manufactured using Chinese 
unfinished pipe fittings and the name of the manufacturer of the 
Chinese unfinished pipe fittings, the U.S. Customs Service shall 
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond in the amount of the 
company-specific rate of the manufacturer of the Chinese unfinished 
pipe fittings. For all such imports which are accompanied by a 
certificate stating that such pipe fittings have been produced from 
unfinished Chinese pipe fittings, but do not provide the specific 
Chinese manufacturer, the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond in the amount of the highest rate for pipe 
fittings from the PRC. For all other imports of pipe fittings from 
Thailand which are accompanied by an inadequate certificate, or no 
certificate, the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or 
posting of a bond in an amount based on the higher of (1) the highest 
rate for any manufacturer/exporter of pipe fittings from the PRC, or 
(2) the rate for the Thai manufacturer/exporter, or, if there is no 
company-specific rate for the Thai manufacturer or exporter, the ``All 
Others'' rate for pipe fittings from Thailand.
    This suspension of liquidation shall remain in effect until further 
notice.
    Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice.
    This final affirmative determination of circumvention is in 
accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1677j(b)) 
and 19 CFR 353.29(f).

    Dated: March 25, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-7715 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P