[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5501-5503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[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.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by one manufacturer/exporter, 
Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (Panchmahal), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting a new shipper administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges 
(flanges) from India. The review covers sales during the period 
February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.
    We preliminarily determine that Panchmahal sold subject merchandise 
at not less than normal value during the period of review (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: February 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam, Alain Letort, or John 
Kugelman, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III--Office 8, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2704 (Killiam), -4243 (Letort), or -0649 
(Kugelman).

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). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references 
to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997). Although 
the Department's new regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351 (62 FR 
27296--May 19, 1997), do not govern these

[[Page 5502]]

proceedings, citations to those regulations are provided, where 
appropriate, to explain current departmental practice.

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel flanges from India on February 9, 1994 (59 FR 5994). 
Panchmahal, by letters dated February 24, March 18, and April 1, 1997, 
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)). Panchmahal provided the shipment date at the time of 
its request for review.
    On May 2, 1997, the Department published a notice of initiation of 
this new shipper review of Panchmahal (62 FR 24088). 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, Panchmahal, and 
the period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
stainless steel flanges which respondent sold in the home market during 
the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no 
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. 
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product 
on the basis of the characteristics listed in the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by the respondent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by the respondent 
to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared 
export price (EP) to normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-
average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. 
transactions.

Export Price

    We calculated the price of United States sales based on EP, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
prior to the date of importation and the constructed export price 
methodology was not indicated by the facts of record.
    We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers 
in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for movement expenses, which were comprised of 
international freight and marine insurance; we also added duty drawback 
to the starting price.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and 
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product 
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at 
which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the 
home market in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade.
    We made adjustments to NV for differences in credit expenses. We 
reduced NV by home market packing costs section under 773(a)(6)(B) and 
increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from 
which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses 
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is 
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In its questionnaire responses, Panchmahal stated that there were 
no differences in its selling activities by customer categories within 
each market. In order to confirm independently the absence of separate 
levels of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we 
examined Panchmahal's

[[Page 5503]]

questionnaire responses for indications that Panchmahal's functions as 
a seller differed qualitatively or quantitatively among customer 
categories. Where possible, we further examined whether each selling 
function was performed on a substantial portion of sales.
    Panchmahal sold to end-users in the U.S. market. In the home 
market, Panchmahal sold to local distributors and end-users. Panchmahal 
performed essentially the same selling functions for sales to all its 
home-market customers, as well as to U.S. customers. Thus, our analysis 
of the questionnaire response leads us to conclude that sales within or 
between each market are not made at different levels of trade. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all sales in the home market 
and the U.S. market were made at the same level of trade. Therefore, we 
have not made a level of trade adjustment because all price comparisons 
are at the same level of trade and an adjustment pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(A) is not appropriate.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in 
order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily 
rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's 
practice, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily 
exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., 
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918--March 6, 
1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the 
past 40 business days. When we determined a fluctuation existed, we 
substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

               Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From India               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panchmahal.................................................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of publication of this notice and 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 working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a 
notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its 
analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not 
later than 90 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate 
for the respondent will be the rate established in the final results of 
this administrative review (except that no deposit will be required for 
firms with zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins lower than 0.5 
percent); (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, a prior review, or the original 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 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 these or any prior 
reviews, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.
    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.
    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: January 26, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-2626 Filed 2-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P