[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2000)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 4595-4600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2015]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-827, A-475-828, A-557-809, A-565-801]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the 
Philippines

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

EFFECTIVE DATE:  January 31, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For Germany: Carrie Blozy or Rick 
Johnson at (202) 482-0165 and (202) 482-3818, respectively; for Italy, 
Helen Kramer or Linda Ludwig at (202) 482-0405 and (202) 482-3833, 
respectively; for Malaysia, Becky Hagen or Rick Johnson at (202) 482-
3362 and (202) 482-3818, respectively; for the Philippines, Fred Baker 
or Robert James at (202) 482-2924 and (202) 482-0649, respectively, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The 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 
references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

[[Page 4596]]

The Petition

    On December 29, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') received a petition on stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines filed in 
proper form by Alloy Piping Products, Inc., Flowline Division, 
Markovitz Enterprises, Inc., Gerlin, Inc., and Taylor Forge 
(``petitioners''). On January 6, 2000, the Department requested 
clarification of certain areas of the petition and received a response 
on January 10, 2000.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners allege 
that imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany, 
Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring 
an industry in the United States.
    The Department finds that petitioners filed this petition on behalf 
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined 
in sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the antidumping duty 
investigations they are requesting the Department to initiate (see 
``Determination of Industry Support for the Petition'' below).

Scope of Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is 
certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings. Certain stainless 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) are under 14 inches in 
outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size), whether finished or 
unfinished. The product encompasses all grades of stainless steel and 
``commodity'' and ``specialty'' fittings. Specifically excluded from 
the definition are threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings 
made from any material other than stainless steel.
    The fittings subject to these investigations are generally 
designated under specification ASTM A403/A403M, the standard 
specification for Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings, 
or its foreign equivalents (e.g., DIN or JIS specifications). This 
specification covers two general classes of fittings, WP and CR, of 
wrought austenitic stainless steel fittings of seamless and welded 
construction covered by the latest revision of ANSI B16.9, ANSI B16.11, 
and ANSI B16.28. Pipe fittings manufactured to specification ASTM A774, 
or its foreign equivalents, are also covered by these investigations.
    These investigations do not apply to cast fittings. Cast austenitic 
stainless steel pipe fittings are covered by specifications A351/A351M, 
A743/743M, and A744/A744M.
    The stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings subject to these 
investigations are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is 
dispositive.
    During our review of the petition, we discussed the scope with the 
petitioners to insure that the scope in the petition accurately 
reflects the product for which they are seeking relief. Moreover, as 
discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations (62 FR 
27323), we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. The Department encourages all parties to 
submit such comments by February 1, 2000. Comments should be addressed 
to Import Administration's Central Record Unit at Room 1870, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consultations is intended to 
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments 
and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary 
determination.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as ``the 
producers of a domestic like product.'' Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (see section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, 
the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to the law. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass from Japan: Final Determination; Rescission of 
Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 32376, 32380-
81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
petition. Moreover, petitioners do not offer a definition of domestic 
like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
    In this case, the domestic like product referred to in the petition 
is the single domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of 
Investigations'' section, above. The Department has no basis on the 
record to find the petition's definition of the domestic like product 
to be inaccurate. No comments were received regarding this issue. The 
Department has, therefore, adopted the domestic like product definition 
set forth in the petition.
    Moreover, the Department has determined that the petition and 
supplemental information to the petition contain adequate evidence of 
sufficient industry support; therefore, polling was not necessary. (See 
Attachment to the Initiation Checklist Re: Industry Support, January 
18, 2000.) To the best of the Department's knowledge, producers 
supporting the petition with respect to each of the four countries 
represent over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like 
product. Additionally, no person who would qualify as an interested 
party pursuant to section 771(9)(A), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of the Act 
has expressed opposition to the petition.
    Accordingly, the Department determines that these petitions are 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry

[[Page 4597]]

within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

Export Price, Constructed Export Price, and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations.
    Petitioners relied upon price data (and in the case of Germany, 
also cost data) contained in confidential market research reports on 
Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. At our request, 
petitioners arranged for the Department to contact the authors of the 
reports to verify the accuracy of the data, the methodologies used to 
collect the data, and the credentials of those gathering the market 
research. The Department's discussions with the authors of the market 
research reports are summarized in the following Memoranda to the File 
on file in the individual country case files in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B-099 of the Department:
     January 7, 2000, Telephone Call to Market Research Firm 
Regarding the AD Petition for Antidumping Investigation of Stainless 
Steel Butt-weld Pipe Fittings from Germany;
     January 7, 2000, Telephone Call to Market Research Firm 
Regarding the AD Petition for Antidumping Investigation of Stainless 
Steel Pipe Fittings from Italy;
     January 12, 2000, Telephone Call to Market Research Firm 
Regarding the AD Petition for Antidumping Investigation of Stainless 
Steel Pipe Fittings from Malaysia; and
     January 12, 2000, Telephone Call to Market Research Firm 
Regarding the AD Petition for Antidumping Investigation of Stainless 
Steel Pipe Fittings from the Philippines.
    The Department has checked the methodologies employed by 
petitioners in calculating export price, constructed export price, 
normal value, cost and constructed value, and has not found any 
discrepancies between petitioners' methodologies and the Department's 
normal practice.

Germany

    Petitioners identified Buttings Edelstahlrohre GMBH, Hage Fittings 
GMBH (``Hage''), Kremo-Werke Hermanns GMBH (``Kremo''), Nirobo Metal 
Verarbeitungs GMBH (``Nirobo''), Uhlig-Rohrbogen GMBH (``Uhlig''), and 
Wilh. Schulz (``Schulz'') as the known producers and exporters of 
subject merchandise from Germany to the United States. With respect to 
home market viability, credible information provided by the foreign 
market researcher showed that home market sales were over 64 times the 
volume of exports to the United States in 1998 in the aggregate, and 
that domestic sales by each of the producers/exporters far exceeded 
exports to the United States. Therefore, the Department concluded that 
home market sales were sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
    Petitioners obtained home market prices for Schulz, Hage, Kremo, 
and Nirobo from foreign market research, contemporaneous with the 
pricing information used as the basis for constructed export price 
(``CEP''). However, due to the differences in German and U.S. 
specifications for subject merchandise, petitioners were unable to 
obtain any products offered for sale to customers in Germany which are 
either identical or similar to those sold to the United States. 
Additionally, as further explained below in the ``Initiation of Cost 
Investigation'' section, petitioners provided information demonstrating 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of pipe fittings 
sold in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed 
cost of production (``COP''), within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (``COM''), selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), including financial expense, and packing costs. To 
calculate COP, petitioners based COM on their own production 
experience, adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to 
produce stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings in the United States 
and in Germany using publicly available data (e.g., company brochures, 
published industry standards, published industry statistics, trade 
journals, etc.) and foreign market research. The foreign market 
research provided information on the cost of raw materials in the home 
market. To calculate the SG&A components of COP, petitioners relied 
upon the information contained in the financial statements of a German 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings producer. Petitioners excluded 
packing from the calculation because they lacked the information to 
calculate an amount. We found this omission reasonable and 
conservative. After review, we relied on the cost data contained in the 
petition.
    Based on our analysis, certain of the home market sales reported in 
the petition were shown to be made at prices below the cost of 
production (see Initiation of Cost Investigation, below). Therefore, 
petitioners based NV on the constructed value (``CV''), pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(e) of 
the Act, CV consists of the COM, SG&A expenses, packing costs and 
profit of the merchandise. To calculate the COM, SG&A expenses, and 
packing costs for CV, petitioners followed the same methodology used to 
determine COP. We confirmed that this methodology was consistent with 
the statute. Petitioners also added to CV an amount for profit, 
pursuant to section 773(e)(2) of the Act. Profit was based upon the 
aforementioned German producer's financial statements.
    Petitioners based CEP on six contemporaneous U.S. sales by Schulz 
to an unaffiliated purchaser. The terms of sale were f.o.b. Schulz 
U.S.A.'s (Schulz's subsidiary) warehouse. Petitioners calculated a net 
U.S. price for each sale by subtracting estimated costs for shipment 
from the factory in Germany to the port of export in Germany. Also, 
petitioners subtracted ocean freight and insurance, an amount for 
import duties based on the 1999 import duty rate of five percent of 
dutiable value, amounts for the U.S. harbor maintenance fee of 0.125 
percent of dutiable value and the U.S. merchandise processing fee of 
0.21 percent of dutiable value, \2\ and U.S. inland freight costs from 
the port to Schulz U.S.A.'s warehouse. Finally, petitioners deducted 
U.S. indirect selling expenses incurred by Schulz U.S.A., Schulz's 
subsidiary in Houston, Texas, based on a petitioning firm's expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See supplement to petition dated January 10, 2000, Exhibit 
G-8b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners estimated dumping margins ranging from 8.35 percent to 
76.24 percent. Should the need arise to use as facts available under 
section 776 of the Act any of this information in our preliminary or 
final determinations, we may re-examine the information and revise the 
margin calculations, if appropriate.

Initiation of Cost Investigation

    As noted above, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, petitioners 
provided specific factual information demonstrating reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that sales in the German home market were made at 
prices below the fully absorbed COP and, accordingly, requested that 
the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-COP investigation in 
connection with the requested antidumping investigation for Germany. 
The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc.

[[Page 4598]]

103-412 (``SAA''), at 833, states that an allegation of sales below COP 
need not be specific to individual exporters or producers. According to 
the SAA, ``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in 
the aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently 
considers allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-
wide basis for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.'' 
Id.
    Further, the SAA provides that:

new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains the current requirement that 
Commerce have `reasonable grounds to believe or suspect' that below 
cost sales have occurred before initiating such an investigation. 
`Reasonable grounds' * * * exist when an interested party provides 
specific factual information on costs and prices, observed or 
constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign market in question 
are at below-cost prices.

Id. Based upon the comparison of the adjusted prices from the petition 
for the representative foreign like products to their costs of 
production as discussed above, we find the existence of ``reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales of the foreign like product 
in Germany were made below the COP within the meaning of section 
773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating 
the requested country-wide cost investigation. (See country-specific 
section above and cost attachment to the initiation checklist.)

Italy

    Petitioners identified Bassi Luigi & Co., Coprosider S.p.A, 
Curvinox, Gam Raccordi S.p.A., Nuova Steelcom S.r.L., Rivit S.p.A., and 
Vignatti Fitting S.r.L. as the known producers and exporters of the 
subject merchandise to the United States. Petitioners based NV on 
Italian home market prices. The foreign market researcher provided 
prices for sales by Coprosider S.p.A. to unaffiliated customers in 
Italy contemporaneous with the U.S. sales. With respect to home market 
viability, credible information provided by the foreign market 
researcher showed that home market sales were over 46 times the volume 
of exports to the United States in 1998 in the aggregate, and that 
domestic sales by each of the producers/exporters far exceeded exports 
to the United States. Therefore, the Department concluded that home 
market sales were sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
    Petitioners calculated net prices for sales in Italy by subtracting 
from the reported gross prices imputed credit expenses, based on the 
average payment period of 60 days reported by the foreign market 
researcher and the average lending rate in Italy during the period of 
investigation (``POI'') of six percent, calculated from rates published 
in International Financial Statistics. Given that the foreign market 
researcher reported that the prices did not include delivery, 
petitioners did not deduct inland freight rates from the reported home 
market gross prices. In addition, they did not adjust the reported 
prices for differences in packing costs, adopting the conservative 
position that packing costs were the same for home market and U.S. 
sales. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Export packing for steel products is normally more expensive 
than the packing required for domestic transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners converted home market prices quoted in lira per piece 
to U.S. dollars per piece by using the Euro/U.S. dollar exchange rate 
in effect multiplied by a fixed conversion rate for Italian lira/Euro 
during the period in which the U.S. sale occurred. The source for the 
exchange rates was the Federal Reserve Bulletin.
    Petitioners based export price (``EP'') on U.S. price quotes for 
pipe fittings manufactured by Coprosider offered for sale to an 
unaffiliated U.S. purchaser during the POI, prior to the date of 
importation. This information was obtained from a confidential source, 
attested to by an affidavit. Petitioners selected pipe fittings with 
specifications commonly exported to the United States. The terms of 
sale were CIF New Jersey, import duty paid. Petitioners subtracted 
estimated costs incurred to transport the subject merchandise from the 
factory to the port of export, as provided by the foreign market 
researcher. In addition, petitioners deducted a sales discount granted 
by the importer.
    Petitioners estimated the cost of international freight based upon 
the difference between the CIF and U.S. Customs values reported in the 
official import statistics for January-September 1999. In addition, 
petitioners subtracted an amount for import duties based on the 1999 
import duty rate of five percent of dutiable value, and amounts for the 
U.S. harbor maintenance fee of 0.125 percent of dutiable value and the 
U.S. merchandise processing fee of 0.21 percent of dutiable value. See 
supplement to petition, dated January 11, 2000.
    Petitioners estimated dumping margins ranging from 61.41 percent to 
86.88 percent. See supplement to petition dated January 11, 2000. 
Should the need arise to use, as facts available under section 776 of 
the Act, any of this information in our preliminary or final 
determination, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin 
calculations, if appropriate.

Malaysia

    Petitioners identified Amalgamated Industrial Stainless Steel, 
Schulz Malaysia, and Kanzen Tetsu as the known producers and exporters 
of the subject merchandise to the United States. Petitioners based NV 
on Malaysian home market prices. With respect to home market viability, 
petitioners concluded, based on information provided by the foreign 
market researcher and attested to by an affidavit, that each of the 
three companies had home market sales of pipe fittings greater than 
five percent of each company's respective exports to the United States 
and, therefore, the volume of home market sales was sufficient to form 
a basis for NV pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. See 
Declaration of (Foreign Market Researcher) Regarding Sales in Malaysia 
of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings, Exhibit 1 of petitioners' 
January 3, 2000 submission.
    The foreign market researcher provided prices for sales to 
unaffiliated customers in Malaysia. Petitioners calculated net prices 
for sales in Malaysia by subtracting from the reported gross prices 
average freight costs and imputed credit expenses, the latter being 
based on the average payment period of 30 days reported by the foreign 
market researcher and the average lending rate in Malaysia during the 
POI of 7.64 percent, calculated from rates published in International 
Financial Statistics. Because the home market prices were obtained from 
end users, petitioners also subtracted a distributor mark-up of four 
percent from the normal value, which was based on foreign market 
research. Petitioners did not adjust the reported prices for 
differences in packing costs. See footnote 3, above. Finally, 
petitioners converted the home market prices from Malaysian Ringgits to 
U.S. dollars based on the average exchange rate of the month in which 
the U.S. sale took place, as published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin.
    Petitioners based U.S. price (in this case, EP) on sales to an 
unaffiliated U.S. purchaser by Kanzen Tetsu during the first and second 
quarters of 1999 prior to the date of importation, as obtained from a 
confidential source, attested to by an affidavit. The petitioners 
selected pipe fittings with specifications commonly exported to the 
United States. The terms of sale were delivered, duty paid, to the U.S. 
customers. Petitioners subtracted estimated costs

[[Page 4599]]

incurred to transport the subject merchandise from the factory to the 
port of export, as provided by the foreign market researcher.
    Petitioners estimated the cost of international freight based upon 
the difference between the CIF and U.S. Customs values reported in the 
official import statistics for January-September 1999. In addition, 
petitioners subtracted an amount for import duties based on the 1999 
import duty rate of five percent of dutiable value, and amounts for the 
U.S. harbor maintenance fee of 0.125 percent of dutiable value and the 
U.S. merchandise processing fee of 0.21 percent of dutiable value. See 
supplement to petition dated January 10, 2000. Finally, petitioners 
subtracted a markup included in the reported price, as obtained from a 
confidential source, attested to by an affidavit.
    Petitioners estimated dumping margins ranging from 39.6 to 60.1 
percent. Should the need arise to use, as facts available under section 
776 of the Act, any of this information in our preliminary or final 
determinations, we may re-examine the information and revise the margin 
calculations, if appropriate.

The Philippines

    Petitioners identified two Philippine exporters and producers of 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings: Enlin Steel Corporation 
(``Enlin'') and Tung Fong Industrial Co., Inc. (``Tung Fong''). 
Petitioners noted that, to the best of their knowledge, these two 
companies accounted for one hundred percent of the exports of subject 
merchandise from the Philippines. Petitioners obtained price quotes 
from Enlin and Tung Fong for stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 
offered for sale to customers in the Philippines which were similar to 
those sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices for 
estimated freight costs and a distributor markup of five percent, since 
the sales prices were obtained from end-users. Petitioners did not 
calculate an imputed credit expense for the home market sales because 
the terms of payment were payment before delivery or cash on delivery. 
In addition, petitioners did not adjust the reported prices for 
differences in packing costs. See footnote 3, above. Finally, 
petitioners converted the home market prices from Philippine pesos to 
U.S. dollars based on the average exchange rate of the month in which 
the U.S. sale took place, as published in International Financial 
Statistics.
    With respect to home market viability, petitioners determined, 
based on information provided by a foreign market researcher, that the 
volume of Philippine home market sales was sufficient to form a basis 
for NV pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act.
    Petitioners based EP for Tung Fong on either duty-paid, CIF price 
quotes made by Tung Fong to unaffiliated U.S. distributors or on ex-
work sales. Petitioners based EP for Enlin on duty-paid CIF price 
quotes. For the U.S. sales whose terms were CIF duty paid, the 
petitioners made deductions for foreign inland freight, international 
freight and insurance, U.S. import duties, and imputed credit. For the 
ex-works sales, petitioners made adjustments for imputed credit. For 
sales made through distributors, petitioners made a deduction for the 
U.S. distributor's markup.
    Petitioners estimated foreign inland freight based on freight rate 
and distance information provided by a foreign market researcher. They 
estimated international freight and insurance by calculating the 
difference between the CIF and U.S. Customs values reported in the 
official import statistics for January through September, 1999. They 
calculated the import duties based on the 1999 import duty rate of five 
percent of dutiable value. In addition, petitioners subtracted amounts 
for the U.S. harbor maintenance fee of 0.125 percent of dutiable value 
and the U.S. merchandise processing fee of 0.21 percent of dutiable 
value. See supplement to petition dated January 10, 2000, Exhibit P-1.
    Petitioners calculated imputed credit expenses based on the average 
payment period of 90 days for sales made by Tung Fong and 30 days for 
sales made by Enlin, and the average lending rate in the United States 
of 7.88 percent for the POI as published in International Financial 
Statistics. They calculated the distributor's percentage markup based 
on the domestic industry's knowledge of the channels of distribution in 
the United States.
    Petitioners estimated dumping margins ranging from 18.24 percent to 
60.17 percent. Should the need arise to use as facts available under 
section 776 of the Act any of this information in our preliminary or 
final determinations, we may re-examine the information and revise the 
margin calculations, if appropriate.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petition alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic 
like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with 
material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of 
the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners explained 
that the industry's injured condition is evident in the declining 
trends in (1) U.S. market share, (2) average unit sales values, (3) 
share of domestic consumption, (4) operating income, (5) employment, 
(6) output, (7) sales, and (8) capacity utilization.
    The allegations of injury and causation are supported by relevant 
evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost sales, and pricing 
information. The Department assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury and causation and determined that 
these allegations are supported by accurate and adequate evidence and 
meet the statutory requirements for initiation (see Attachments to 
Initiation Checklist, Re: Material Injury, January 18, 2000).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the petition on pipe fittings from 
Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines, we find that the petition 
meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 
initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports 
of pipe fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Unless this deadline is extended, we will make our preliminary 
determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this 
initiation.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. We will attempt to 
provide a copy of the public versions of each petition to each exporter 
named in the petition, as appropriate.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine, by no later than February 14, 2000, whether 
there is a reasonable indication that imports of pipe fittings from 
Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines are causing material 
injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. A 
negative ITC determination will result in these investigations being 
terminated; otherwise, these

[[Page 4600]]

investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: January 18, 2000.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2015 Filed 1-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P