[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