[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51261-51263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-533-809]


Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary 
Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of new shipper antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

[[Page 51262]]

SUMMARY: In response to a request by one manufacturer/exporter, Viraj 
Forgings, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new shipper administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain forged stainless steel flanges from India (flanges). The period 
of review (POR) is March 1, 1995 through August 31, 1995. We have 
preliminarily determined that Viraj sold subject merchandise at not 
less than normal value (NV) during the POR.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2704, or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    By letters dated August 31 and September 25, 1995, Viraj requested 
a new shipper review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 
section 353.22(h) of the Department's interim regulations, which govern 
determinations of antidumping duties for new shippers. These provisions 
state that, among other requirements, a producer or exporter requesting 
a new shipper review must include with its request the date on which 
the merchandise was first entered or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, or, if it cannot certify as to the date of first entry, 
the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the 
United States (interim regulations, section 353.22(h)(2)(i)). Because 
the shipment had not yet occurred, Viraj was unable to provide the 
shipment date at the time of its request for review, but did certify 
that the shipment would take place prior to any possible verification. 
Based on the information which Viraj provided in its request we 
determined that the requirements cited above were adequately fulfilled. 
Viraj later provided the shipment date, October 30, 1995, in its 
response.
    On October 30, 1995, the Department initiated this new shipper 
review of Viraj (60 FR 55241). The Department is now conducting this 
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act and section 353.22 of 
its interim regulations.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless 
steel flanges both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to 
specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, 
and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are 
weld neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for 
threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/
butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a 
machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of 
the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; 
however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in 
the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast 
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are 
manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this 
order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 
7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this order remains 
dispositive.
    The review covers one Indian manufacturer/exporter, Viraj, and the 
period March 1, 1995 through August 31, 1995.

Export Price (EP)

    We calculated the EP based on the price from Viraj to an 
unaffiliated party since the sale was made prior to importation into 
the United States, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses, which were 
comprised of customs brokerage and handling expenses, home market 
inland freight, international freight, and insurance. No other 
adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value (NV)

A. Viability

    Viraj had no domestic sales of flanges during the POR. Therefore, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we used South Korea 
as an appropriate third country market for comparison, because it was 
the only third country market in which Viraj sold subject merchandise 
during the POR, and because it met the requirements set forth in 
773(a)(1)(C).

B. Model Match

    We first searched for the third-country model identical in physical 
characteristics with each U.S. model. When there were no 
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise, we searched for the 
third-country model which is most like or most similar in 
characteristics with each U.S. model. To perform the model match, we 
first searched for the most similar third-country model with regard to 
alloy. If there were several third-country models with identical 
alloys, we then searched among the models with identical alloys for the 
most similar third-country model with regard to size. We continued this 
process with regard to type and standard. If, as a result of this 
analysis, several third-country models were deemed equally similar, we 
chose the third-country model which, when compared to the U.S. model, 
had the lowest difference in variable cost of manufacturing (difmer), 
provided the difmer did not exceed 20 percent of the total cost of 
manufacturing of the U.S. model.

C. Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the Department 
will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 
the U.S. sales. To implement this principle in this review, we 
requested and examined information on the selling activities associated 
with each channel of distribution in each of Viraj's markets; since 
there were no differences in such selling activities in either market, 
and since all sales in both markets were at a single LOT, we compared 
sales at this sole LOT.

D. Constructed Value (CV)

    For those U.S. models where no foreign like product was found with 
a difmer of less than 20 percent, we used

[[Page 51263]]

CV as the basis of NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on Viraj's cost of materials and fabrication employed in 
producing the subject merchandise, selling, general and administrative 
expenses (SG&A) incurred in connection with the production and sale of 
the foreign like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the costs of 
materials, fabrication, and G&A as reported in the CV portion of 
Viraj's questionnaire response.
    We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales 
portion of Viraj's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses 
and profit on the information reported in the third-country sales 
portion of Viraj's questionnaire response.

E. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For price-to-price comparisons, we based NV on the prices at which 
the foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the third-
country market to an unaffiliated party, in the usual commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and at the same level of 
trade as the EP, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the 
Act. Viraj made all third-country and EP sales of subject merchandise 
at the same level of trade.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales 
of the foreign like product. We made adjustments, where applicable, for 
expenses incident to placing the foreign like product in condition 
packed ready for shipment to the place of delivery to the purchaser, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We calculated NV 
based on FOB-factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers, and 
made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses. We 
increased third-country price by U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. Prices were reported net of value-
added taxes (VAT) and, therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary. 
We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where appropriate, for 
differences in credit expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of CEP and NV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                   Period         Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viraj.....................................     03/01/95-8/31/95     0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 34 days after the date of publication, or the 
first workday thereafter. Case briefs from interested parties may be 
submitted not later than 20 days after the date of publication. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed not later than 27 days after the date of publication. Parties who 
submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. The Department will issue the final results of the new 
shipper administrative review, including the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs, within 90 days of 
issuance of these preliminary results.
    Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. The 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the 
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
    Furthermore, upon completion of this review, the posting of a bond 
or security in lieu of a cash deposit, pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and section 353.22(h)(4) of the 
Department's interim regulations, will no longer be permitted and, 
should the final results yield a margin of dumping, a cash deposit will 
be required for each entry of the merchandise. The following deposit 
requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of 
this new shipper antidumping duty administrative review for all 
shipments of flanges from India manufactured by Viraj, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for the reviewed company will be that established in the final 
results of this new shipper administrative review; (2) for exporters 
not covered in this review, but covered in previous reviews or the 
original less- than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 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, previous reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the 
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 162.14 percent, the all others rate established in the 
LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994, February 9, 1994).
    These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    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 the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This new shipper administrative review and notice are in accordance 
with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 
CFR 353.22(h).

    Dated: September 23, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25112 Filed 9-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P