[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6046-6048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-533-502]


Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
India

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 
from India. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Rajinder 
Pipes Ltd. The period of review is May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998.
    We have preliminarily determined that respondent's margin should be 
based on total adverse facts available. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will 
instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the 
selected adverse facts-available rate.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Tabash at (202) 482-5047 or 
Robin Gray at (202) 482-4023, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commere's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Case History

    On June 29, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(63 FR 35188) the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from India. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, we 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review of this 
antidumping duty order for the period May 1, 1997, through April 30, 
1998. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Rajinder Pipes Ltd. 
(Rajinder). The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.
    On September 17, 1998, the petitioners alleged that Rajinder made 
home-market sales of subject merchandise at prices below the cost of 
production (COP). On October 19, 1998, we concluded that petitioners' 
allegation provided us with reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that Rajinder made below-cost sales in the home market within the 
meaning of section 773(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we initiated a 
COP investigation of Rajinder's home-market sales. On

[[Page 6047]]

October 21, 1998, we instructed Rajinder to respond to section D of the 
original questionnaire, which requests cost information for the period 
currently under review. Despite numerous extensions, Rajinder did not 
provide the requested cost information.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside 
diameter of 0.372 inches or more but not more than 406.4 millimeters 
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface 
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, 
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes 
are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be called 
structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes 
and tubes are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, 
natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating 
systems, air-conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other 
related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and 
mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection 
of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those 
types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe 
applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outlined above are included in the scope of this order, 
except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.
    Imports of the products covered by this review are currently 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
subheadings: 61032, 61049, 7306.30.10, and 7306.30.50. Although, the 
HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
Department's written description of the scope of this proceeding 
remains dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Because Rajinder has not provided the requested cost information 
and has not provided record evidence substantiating its reasons for not 
responding to our questionnaire, Rajinder has precluded us from 
conducting an analysis to determine whether its comparison-market 
(India) sales prices were below their respective COP in substantial 
quantities and over an extended period of time. Accordingly, we believe 
that we must resort to total facts available.
    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
fails to provide information requested by the Department by the 
deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner 
requested, the Department shall use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title. In this review, 
as described below, Rajinder failed to provide a response to our COP 
questionnaire by the established deadline.
    Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not 
decline to consider whether the information submitted by the respondent 
that is already on the record is usable. The information that Rajinder 
failed to provide would have been the first comprehensive cost 
information to be used in the Department's cost investigation. Thus, 
the information currently on the record is so incomplete that it cannot 
serve as a reliable basis for reaching preliminary results (see 
Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (January 7, 1997)). Therefore, in 
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308 (a), we 
must use facts otherwise available.
    In selecting facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department 
finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. In the 
instant review, Rajinder submitted five extension requests in response 
to the original deadline issued for submission of its section D 
questionnaire response. The reasons cited for the extension requests 
changed over time. Initially, the company cited several reasons for not 
submitting its section D response including preparation of year-end 
reports, problems with the telephone lines, and insufficient staff. In 
the last two extension requests, Rajinder cited a claim of labor unrest 
which Rajinder failed to substantiate. Even in light of these 
extensions, Rajinder ultimately failed to submit the relevant cost 
information for the record of this review. Therefore, we have 
determined that Rajinder has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with our request for information for this 
review. Consequently, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the 
Department may use adverse inferences when selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available.
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
The Department will also consider the extent to which a party may 
benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See 
Roller Chain Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results 
and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
69,472, 60477 (November 10, 1997), and Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53820-21 (October 16, 1997).
    In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce Rajinder's cooperation, we have assigned to Rajinder as adverse 
facts available a rate of 87.39 percent, the highest rate calculated 
for any respondent for any segment of this proceeding. This rate was 
calculated for the 88/89 administrative review of this order. Although 
Rajinder asked that we use old cost data as facts available for this 
review, because we do not have any information concerning Rajinder's 
current costs, we cannot determine if its old cost data would be 
sufficiently adverse for use as facts available. Therefore, we have not 
used it.
    Section 776(c) of the Act directs the Department to corroborate, to 
the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available. 
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as 
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for 
calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is an 
administrative determination. Thus, in an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin from that time 
period. See, e.g., Elemental Sulphur from Canada: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR at 971 (January 7, 
1997), and Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof from

[[Page 6048]]

France, et al, 62 FR 2801 (January 15, 1997).
    As to the relevance of the margin used for adverse facts available, 
the Department stated in Tapered Roller Bearings from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 47454 
(September 9, 1997), that it will consider information reasonably at 
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected 
margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department 
will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See 
also, Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 49567 (September 26, 1995). We have 
determined that there is no evidence which would indicate that the rate 
is irrelevant or inappropriate as an adverse facts available rate for 
Rajinder in the instant review. Therefore, we have applied, as total 
adverse facts available, the 87.39 percent margin from the 1988/89 
administrative review.
    For more detailed information on the use, selection, and 
corroboration of facts available, please see the January 28, 1999, 
decision memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland, which 
is available in the Central Records Unit, Import Administration, B-099, 
Main Commerce Building, Washington, DC, 20230.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the 
weighted-average dumping margin (in percent) for the period May 1, 
1997, through April 30, 1998, to be as follows.

Company

    Rajinder Pipes Ltd.--87.39
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the 
publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues 
raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective 
case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may 
be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice.
    Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic 
version included. The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review subsequently, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing. The 
Department will issue final results of this review within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the reviewed 
company will be the rate 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, 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) the cash-
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to 
be 7.08 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the final 
determination of sales at LTFV, as explained in the 1995/96 new shipper 
review of this order. See Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel Pipes 
and Tubes From India; Final Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 47632, 47644 (September 10, 1997).
    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 reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
    Dated: February 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2998 Filed 2-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P