[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31502]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 22, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-605]

 

Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan; Preliminary 
Results of 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 from the U.S. Butt-Weld Fittings 
Committee, petitioner in this proceeding, the Department of Commerce 
(the Department) has conducted an 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 for the period December 1, 1992, 
through November 30, 1993.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference 
between the United States price (USP) and FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlo G. Cavagna or Richard Rimlinger, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 
482-4733.

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. We received a timely 
request from the petitioner, the U.S. Butt-Weld Fittings Committee, to 
review C.M. Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (CM), Rigid Industries 
Co., Ltd. (Rigid), Chup Hsin Enterprises (Chup Hsin), and Gei Bey 
Corporation (Gei Bey). The period of review (POR) covers December 1, 
1992, through November 30, 1993, and the administrative review was 
initiated on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2593). The Department is 
conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act).

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 preliminarily 
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. When 
a company substantially cooperated with our requests for information, 
but failed to provide all the information requested in a timely manner 
or in the form requested, we used as BIA the higher of (1) the highest 
rate (including the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm 
for the same class or kind of merchandise from the same country from 
either the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a prior 
administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this 
review for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise from the 
same country. 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, 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.

United States Price

    In calculating USP, the Department treated respondents' sales as 
purchase price (PP) transactions, as defined in section 772 of the Act, 
because the merchandise was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to 
importation.
    PP was based on c.i.f. U.S. port prices to unrelated purchasers in, 
or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions from PP, 
as appropriate, for domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling 
charges, assorted port and trade development taxes in Taiwan, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, imputed credit expenses, assorted bank and 
interest charges, and commissions.
    We adjusted USP for taxes 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).
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of carbon 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings in the home market to serve as a viable 
basis for calculating FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales 
of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings to the volume of third country 
sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. CM and Rigid 
had viable home markets with respect to sales of carbon steel butt-weld 
pipe fittings.
    Because 20 percent of Rigid's foreign market sales were determined 
to have been made below the cost of production (COP) during the last 
administrative review (56 FR 20187, 20188), we concluded that 
reasonable grounds existed to believe or suspect that home market sales 
during the POR were made at prices below COP. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 773(b) of the Act, the Department initiated a COP investigation 
of Rigid for purposes of this administrative review. See Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from 
Eight Countries; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 59 FR 9463, 9467 (February 28, 1994). Furthermore, based on an 
allegation by petitioner, we also determined that reasonable grounds 
existed to believe or suspect that sales below cost of carbon steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings had been made by CM. Thus, we initiated a COP 
investigation with respect to CM.
    We performed a model-specific COP test, in which we examined 
whether each home market sale was priced below the merchandise's COP. 
The Department defines the COP as the sum of direct material, direct 
labor, variable and fixed factory overhead, general expenses, and 
packing. For each model, we compared this sum to the reported home 
market unit price, net of price adjustments and movement expenses. In 
accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we also examined whether the 
home market sales of each model were made at prices below their COP in 
substantial quantities over an extended period of time, and whether 
such sales were made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
    For each model where less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home 
market sales during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we 
included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each 
model where 10 percent or more, but not more than 90 percent, of the 
home market sales during the POR were priced below the merchandise's 
COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales 
which were priced below the merchandise's COP, provided that these 
below-cost sales were made over an extended period of time. For each 
model where 90 percent or more of the home market sales during the POR 
were priced below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that model from 
our calculation of FMV and used the constructed value (CV) of those 
models as described below. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Eight Countries; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 59 FR 
9463, 9467 (February 28, 1994).
    In order to determine if sales below cost had been made over an 
extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which 
below-cost sales occurred for each model to the number of months during 
the POR in which each model was sold. If a model was sold in fewer than 
three months, we did not exclude the below-cost sales unless there were 
below-cost sales in each month of sale. If a model was sold in three or 
more months, we did not exclude the below-cost sales unless there were 
below-cost sales in at least three months during the POR. See 
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 
Thereof from Nine Countries; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 58 FR 39729, 39751 (July 26, 1993). Based on 
this test, we found it necessary to disregard certain home market sales 
made by CM and Rigid.
    We used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were 
insufficient sales of the comparison home-market model at or above the 
COP. We calculated CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, as 
the sum of the cost of manufacturing of the product sold in the United 
States, home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, home market profit, and U.S. packing. For home market SG&A 
expenses, we used the larger of the actual SG&A expenses reported by 
the respondents or 10 percent of the COM, the statutory minimum for 
foreign SG&A expenses. For home market profit, we used the larger of 
the actual profit reported by the respondents or the statutory minimum 
of eight percent of the sum of COM and SG&A expenses.
    For those models that had sufficient above-cost sales, we 
calculated FMV based on delivered prices to unrelated customers in the 
home market. In calculating FMV, we made adjustments, where 
appropriate, for inland freight and imputed credit expenses. We 
adjusted for the Taiwan consumption tax in accordance with our decision 
in Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994). We deducted home 
market packing costs from the home market price and added U.S. packing 
costs to the FMV. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56, we also made, where 
applicable, adjustments for differences in the physical characteristics 
of merchandise. Furthermore, where commissions were paid on U.S. sales 
and not paid on home market sales, we allowed an offset to FMV 
amounting to the lesser of the weighted-average home market indirect 
selling expenses or the U.S. commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(b) of the regulations.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminary 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.........................................        12.24
Gei Bey Corporation........................................        87.30
Rigid Industries...........................................         2.53
All Others.................................................        49.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon completion of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between USP 
and FMV may vary from the percentages stated above. Upon completion of 
the review the Department will issue appraisement instructions with 
respect to each exporter directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    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 the final results of this administrative review, 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 the final results 
of this review; (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 (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.
    Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice, and may request a hearing within 10 
days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be 
held as early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days 
after the date of publication or the first work day thereafter. Case 
briefs or other written comments from interested parties may be 
submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues in the 
case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. 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.
    This notice 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 subsequent assessment 
of double antidumping duties.
    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: December 7, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-31502 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P