[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16541-16542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8845]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-807]
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand;
Preliminary Results of Antidumpting 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 Tube Forgings of America, Inc.,
and Mills Iron Works, Inc., (hereafter petitioner) who were the members
of the petitioning group of companies in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Thailand. This review
covers TTU Industrial Corp., Ltd. (TTU), a manufacturer/exporter of
this merchandise to the United States, and the period July 1, 1995,
through June 30, 1996. The firm failed to submit a response to our
questionnaire. As a result, we have preliminarily determined to sue the
facts otherwise available for cash deposit and appraisement purposes.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the arguments: (1) A statement of the issues and (2) a
brief summary of the arguments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Manzoni or James Terpstra, Office of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group II, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-4737.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute
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).
Background
On July 30, 1996, the petitioner requested, in accordance with
section 353.22(a) of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.22(a)),
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order (57 FR 29702,
July 6, 1992) on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from
Thailand, with respect to TTU, a manufacturer/exporter of this
merchandise to the United States, and covering the period July 1, 1995,
through June 30, 1996. We published a notice of initiation of the
review on August 15, 1996 (61 FR 42416). On September 19, 1996, the
Department sent an antidumping questionnaire to TTU. The response to
the questionnaire was due on November 3, 1996. To date, we have not
received any response from TTU. The Department is now conducting this
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this order is certain carbon steel but-weld
pipe fitting, 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 subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
The review covers TTU and the period July 1, 1995, through June 30,
1996 (POR).
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of
the Act, that the use of facts available (FA) is appropriate for TTU
because it did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire. We find
that this firm has withheld ``information that has been requested by
the administering
[[Page 16542]]
authority.'' Furthermore, we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, it is appropriate to make an inference adverse to the
interests of this company because it failed to cooperate by not
responding to our questionnaire.
Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on facts otherwise available
because that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act
authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the interests of that
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act
also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall,
to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
to be used has probative value. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.,
2d sess. 870 (1994).)
In this case, for total adverse FA we have used the best
information available (BIA) rate from the LTFV investigation (50.84
percent), which was based on the highest alleged margin in the
antidumping petition (52.60 percent), adjusted to exclude the export
subsidies found during the period of investigation (1.76 percent). To
corroborate the LTFV BIA rate of 50.84 percent, we examined the basis
of the rates contained in the petition. The US prices in the petition
were based on publicly known prices from a Thai manufacturer selling in
the United States. The foreign market value was based on constructed
value. We reviewed the data submitted by the petitioner and the
assumptions that petitioner made when calculating CV. The methodology
was reasonable and was based on the data reasonably available to
petitioner at the time.
We preliminarily find that, in this case, there are no
circumstances that indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate
as adverse facts available.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin
of 50.84 percent exists for TTU for the period July 1, 1995, through
June 30, 1996.
Any interested party 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 workday thereafter. Case briefs and/
or written comments from interested parties may be submitted not later
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
the case briefs and comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after
the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments in this
proceeding are requested to submit with the arguments: (1) A statement
of the issues and (2) a brief summary of the arguments. The Department
will publish the final results of the administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written
comments or at a hearing.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Thailand
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 company will be the rate established in the final results
of administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers
or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original
LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue
to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or
final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an
individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, the previous 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 reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 39.10 percent,
the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (57 FR
29702, July 6, 1992).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR
353.22 and 19 CFR 353.25.
Dated: April 1, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-8845 Filed 4-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M