[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47388-47393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19549]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-828]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Butt-
Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Kramer or Phyllis Hall at (202) 
482-0405 and (202) 482-1398, respectively, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

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 of Commerce 
(``Department'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 
(April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings (``pipe fittings'') from Italy are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as 
provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margin of sales at 
LTFV is shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

Case History

    On January 18, 2000, the Department initiated antidumping 
investigations of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany, 
Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, 
Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines, 65 FR 4595 (January 31, 2000). 
Since the initiation of this investigation the following events have 
occurred.
    On January 18, 2000, the Department initiated antidumping 
investigations of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Germany, 
Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, 
Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines, 65 FR 4595 (January 31, 2000) 
(``Notice of Initiation''). Since the initiation of this investigation 
the following events have occurred.
    The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage (see Notice of Initiation at 
4596). A response was received from Coprosider S.p.A. (``Coprosider'') 
on February 1, 2000, agreeing with the scope of the investigation. On 
February 3, 2000, Wilh. Schulz GmbH and its affiliates (``Schulz'') 
submitted comments to the Department requesting that the scope be 
limited only to specification ASTM 403/403M fittings below 14 inches in 
diameter.
    On January 21, 2000, the Department issued proposed product 
concordance criteria to all interested parties. On February 4, 2000, 
the following interested parties submitted comments on our proposed 
product concordance criteria: Kanzen Tetsu Sdn. Bhd. (``Kanzen''); 
Coprosider; and Alloy Piping Products, Inc.; Flowline Division of 
Markovitz Enterprises, Inc.; Gerlin, Inc.; and Taylor Forge Stainless, 
Inc. (``petitioners''). On Feburary 8, 2000 and February 18, 2000, we 
received comments on our proposed product concordance criteria from 
Schulz.
    On February 14, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary injury determination on imports of subject merchandise from 
Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. On February 24, 2000, the 
ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from Germany, Italy, 
Malaysia and the Philippines (65 FR 9298).
    On February 14, 2000, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative 
preliminary injury determination on imports of subject merchandise from 
Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. On February 24, 2000, the 
ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports of the subject merchandise from Germany, Italy, 
Malaysia and the Philippines (65 FR 9298).
    On January 27, 2000, the Department issued Section A of its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Coprosider S.p.A. (``Coprosider''). 
On February 9, 2000, the Department received Coprosider's

[[Page 47389]]

response to Question 1 of Section A. On March 9, 2000, the Department 
issued Sections B-E of its antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Coprosider. On the same day, petitioners filed comments on Coprosider's 
section A response. On March 10, 2000, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire for Coprosider's Section A response. 
Coprosider responded on March 24, 2000.
    On April 13, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice postponing the preliminary determination until July 26, 2000 
(Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations: 
Stainless Steel Butt-weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia 
and the Philippines (65 FR 19876)).
    Coprosider filed its Sections B and C response on May 1, 2000. On 
May 17, 2000, petitioners requested that the Department initiate a cost 
investigation. Petitioners submitted comments on Coprosider's Sections 
B and C response on May 19, 2000. The Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire on May 23, 2000. On May 24, 2000, Coprosider filed 
comments on petitioners' request for a cost investigation. The 
Department initiated a cost investigation on June 1, 2000. On June 20, 
2000, Coprosider filed its supplemental Section B and C response. The 
Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire on June 22, 2000. 
Coprosider filed its cost and second supplemental responses on July 3, 
2000. Petitioners filed comments on these responses on July 10 and July 
17, 2000, and Coprosider filed a rebuttal on July 12, 2000. Due to the 
late initiation of the sales below cost portion of this investigation, 
the Department did not receive the Section D questionnaire response, as 
noted above, until July 3, 2000. Consequently, there has been 
insufficient time for the Department to issue a supplemental section D 
questionnaire response to Coprosider and receive it back prior to the 
preliminary determination. Therefore, we are using the respondent's 
data for purposes of the preliminary determination, with one exception, 
as submitted. We will continue to analyze the cost response and 
petitioner's comments and will seek clarifications and corrections to 
the data as necessary.
    On June 30, 2000, petitioners alleged that critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines. The 
Department requested monthly shipment data from Coprosider for calendar 
year 1998 through May 2000 on July 6, 2000. Coprosider submitted data 
for October 1998 through March 2000 on July 13, 2000. On July 18, 2000, 
Coprosider submitted shipment data for April 2000 through June 2000.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    On June 29, 2000, Coprosider requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until not later than 135 
days after the date of the publication of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register. On June 30, 2000, Coprosider 
also agreed to an extension of the provisional measures to not more 
than six months. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), 
because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the 
requesting exporter accounts for a significant portion of exports of 
subject merchandise, and (3) there is no compelling reason for denial, 
we are granting the respondent's request and are postponing the final 
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination. Similarly, we are 
extending the application of the provisional measures.

Period of Investigation

    The Period of Investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 1998 through 
September 30, 1999. This period corresponds to the four most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., 
December 1999), and is in accordance with our regulations. See section 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is 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.
    This investigation does 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 this 
investigation 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.

Product Comparisons

    Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by 
the respondent that are within the scope of the investigation, above, 
and were sold in the comparison market during the POI, are considered 
to be foreign like products. We have relied on six criteria to match 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the 
foreign like product: type, grade, whether seamless or welded, size, 
schedule (wall thickness) and finished or blank. 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 next most similar foreign like 
product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting instructions 
listed in the Department's March 9, 2000, questionnaire.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Italy were made in the United States at LTFV, we compared 
the export price (``EP'') to the normal value (``NV''),

[[Page 47390]]

as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated POI weighted-average EPs for comparison to POI weighted-
average NVs.

Export Price

    We used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because Coprosider sold the subject merchandise directly to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States prior to the date of 
importation, and because CEP methodology was not otherwise appropriate. 
We based EP on CIF duty unpaid prices to unaffiliated customers in the 
United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2), we made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses, including foreign inland 
freight, warehouse handling expense, customs brokerage and 
international freight, and discounts, where appropriate.

Normal Value

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided 
that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if 
quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular market 
situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The statute 
contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered 
insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate 
quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States.
    Coprosider had a viable home market, and reported home market sales 
data for purposes of the calculation of NV. In deriving NV, we made 
certain adjustments described in detail in Calculation of Normal Value 
Based on Home Market Prices, below.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the cost allegations submitted by 
petitioners on May 17, 2000, the Department found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that Coprosider had made sales of pipe fittings 
manufactured in Italy at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Cost 
Memorandum, June 1, 2000. As a result, the Department initiated an 
investigation to determine whether Coprosider made home market sales 
during the POI at prices below the cost of production (``COP'') within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis 
described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of Coprosider's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), including interest 
expenses, and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP data 
submitted by Coprosider on July 3, 2000, with the exception that in 
those instances in which Coprosider submitted two costs for the same 
control number, we weight averaged those costs.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP for Coprosider to home market 
sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were 
made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, 
and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 
(B) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to 
home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, and 
discounts.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Coprosider's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of Coprosider's sales 
of a given product during the POI were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we compared prices to fiscal year 
average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at 
prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. 
Therefore, we disregarded those below-cost sales.

Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We calculated NV based on ex-factory prices and made deductions 
from the starting price for inland freight to Coprosider's warehouse 
and warehouse and packing expense. In addition, we made circumstance of 
sale (COS) adjustments for discounts and commissions, where applicable, 
and direct expenses (i.e., credit expenses), in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP 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 SG&A expenses and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the 
level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to 
the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP, 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 a 
LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 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 implementing these principles in this investigation, we examined 
information from Coprosider regarding the marketing stages involved in 
the reported home market and EP sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by Coprosider for each channel of 
distribution. In identifying LOT for EP and home market sales, we 
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before 
any adjustments.
    Coprosider claimed two LOTs in each market: LOT 1 including sales 
to end-users, engineering companies, equipment manufacturers and 
trading companies, and LOT 2 including sales to distributors/stockists, 
and claimed a LOT adjustment for differences in selling prices. We 
examined the chains

[[Page 47391]]

of distribution and customer categories reported in the home market and 
in the United States. In both the home and U.S. markets, Coprosider 
reported two channels of distribution, one which was identical to LOT 
1, and another which was identical to LOT 2. We further examined the 
selling functions related to those sales. Coprosider claimed in its 
June 20, 2000, supplemental response (Exhibit SB1), that it provided 
technical advice and after-sale services and warranties for customers 
in the end-user, equipment manufacturer, and engineering company 
categories in both the home market and the U.S. market, and also to the 
trading company category in the United States, but not to distributors. 
However, in its Section B and C response of May 1, 2000, it stated it 
incurred no warranty and technical service expenses during the POI 
(other than quality control expenses reported under indirect selling 
expenses). Thus, the only remaining differences in reported selling 
functions between the claimed LOTs are inventory maintenance, order 
solicitation and order processing. We do not consider these differences 
in selling functions sufficient to find different LOTs. On this basis, 
it appears that there is insufficient evidence on the record to 
establish different LOTs in either market. Therefore, Coprosider has 
not met its burden of proof to establish its claim for a LOT adjustment 
for comparisons of EP sales to home market sales. Accordingly, the 
Department has preliminarily denied a LOT adjustment.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) of the Act 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. It is the Department's practice to find that a fluctuation 
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by 
2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the moving average of rates 
for the past 40 business days. When we determine a fluctuation to have 
existed, we substitute the benchmark rate for the daily rate, in 
accordance with established practice. Further, section 773A(b) of the 
Act directs the Department to allow a 60-day adjustment period when a 
currency has undergone a sustained movement. A sustained movement has 
occurred when the weekly average of actual daily rates exceeds the 
weekly average of benchmark rates by more than five percent for eight 
consecutive weeks. (For an explanation of this method, see Policy 
Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996).)

Critical Circumstances

    On June 30, 2000, petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of pipe fittings from Italy. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), given that this allegation was filed at least 20 
days prior to the preliminary determination, the Department must issue 
its preliminary critical circumstances determination no later than the 
preliminary determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period.

History of Dumping or Importer Knowledge of Dumping

    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, the Department considers evidence of 
an existing antidumping order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from other countries to be sufficient. We are unaware of any 
antidumping order against Italy on stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings worldwide. Therefore, the Department must examine part (ii) of 
the first prong of the critical circumstances test.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings at less than fair 
value, the Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more 
for EP sales sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping and of resultant 
material injury. (See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Steel Seamless 
Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic, 65 FR 33803, 
33803 (May 25, 2000)). In the instant case, we have preliminarily 
determined that the margin for the respondent, Coprosider, is 32.12 
percent. Therefore, we have imputed knowledge of dumping to importers 
of the subject merchandise from Coprosider.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the 
Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination 
of the International Trade Commission (``ITC''). If the ITC finds a 
reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. 
industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists 
to impute importer knowledge that there was likely to be material 
injury by reason of dumped imports. In this case, the ITC has found 
that a reasonable indication of present material injury due to dumping 
exists for subject imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 
from Italy. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-weld Pipe Fittings from 
Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines, 65 FR 9298 (February 24, 
2000). As a result, the Department has determined that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers knew or should 
have known that there was likely to be material injury by reason of 
dumped imports of the subject merchandise from Italy.

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short time period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of 
the Act, section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of 
the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic 
consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as normally being the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. On July 19, 
2000, Coprosider submitted a letter to the Department arguing that the 
import data it provided on July 13, 2000, establish that its exports of 
the subject merchandise during the three months immediately following 
the filing of the petition did not increase by more

[[Page 47392]]

than 15 percent over imports during the three months preceding the 
petition, and that the Department should therefore issue a negative 
critical circumstances determination.
    The Department's Antidumping Manual states:

    We generally consider the period beginning with the filing of 
the petition and ending with the preliminary determination. We then 
compare this period to a period of equal duration immediately prior 
to the filing of the petition to determine whether imports had been 
massive over a relatively short period of time.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Import Administration Antidumping Manual, chapter 10 
(Critical Circumstances), p. 4 (January 22, 1998).

    The petition was filed on December 29, 1999, and Coprosider 
provided data through June 2000 for its imports into the United States 
of the subject merchandise. Thus, in accordance with Department 
practice as described above, we compared Coprosider's average monthly 
imports during the second half of 1999 to its average monthly imports 
during the first half of 2000 to determine changes in the quantity of 
imports. Average monthly imports increased in the first half of 2000 by 
over 15 percent in volume over the base period of 1999. See Memorandum 
for Richard O. Weible from Helen M. Kramer Re: Analysis of Critical 
Circumstances in the Antidumping Investigation of Stainless Steel Butt-
weld Pipe Fittings from Italy (July 21, 2000).
    Although in our letter of July 6, 2000, we asked Coprosider to 
provide data for shipments of the subject merchandise to the United 
States for 1998, Coprosider provided data for only the last quarter of 
the year. The Department is therefore unable to make a complete 
analysis of the existence of seasonal factors affecting the imports of 
this product. However, Coprosider's imports of the subject merchandise 
into the United States fell by over 48 percent in volume between the 
last quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999, but increased by 
over 14 percent between the last quarter of 1999 and the first quarter 
of 2000. Furthermore, U.S. Census Bureau monthly data for January 1998 
through May 2000 show no seasonal pattern for imports of stainless 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy (including non-scope 
merchandise). Neither our analysis of the monthly imports data provided 
by Coprosider, nor petitioners' comments suggest that seasonality can 
explain the increase in imports during the first half of 2000. Thus, we 
do not consider seasonality to be relevant to the massive increase in 
imports of the subject merchandise.
    With respect to item (iii), concerning the share of domestic 
consumption accounted for by the imports, we requested additional data 
from the petitioners. In response to this request, on July 20, 2000, 
petitioners submitted supplemental information regarding the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by imports of stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings from Italy. As current domestic producer U.S. 
shipments data are not publicly available, petitioners estimated these 
on the basis of ITC data from the preliminary determination in this 
case for the period January--September 1999. (See Certain Stainless 
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the 
Philippines, Inv. 731-TA-864-867 (Pub. 3281), February 2000.) 
Petitioners state that domestic shipments have not increased between 
the first three quarters of 1999 and the September--December 1999 or 
January--April 2000 comparison periods used in their critical 
circumstances allegation, and that average shipments have actually 
declined. Petitioners used official U.S. import statistics to estimate 
the share of imports in domestic consumption. For Italy, the share of 
imports in the U.S. market for stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 
(including non-scope merchandise) increased from 7.7 to 11.5 percent in 
the comparison periods.
    Given that Coprosider's average monthly imports into the United 
States increased by over 15 percent in a relatively short period of 
time, and taking into account that seasonal factors do not appear to be 
present, and that imports from Italy appear to have increased their 
share of the domestic market, we preliminarily determine that imports 
of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy have been 
massive.
    Based on our determination that there is a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that importers had knowledge of dumping and the 
likelihood of material injury, and that there have been massive imports 
of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy over a relatively 
short period of time, we preliminarily determine that critical 
circumstances exist for imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Italy produced by Coprosider. Accordingly, we will 
require Customs to suspend liquidation of imports produced by 
Coprosider in accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act. (See 
Suspension of Liquidation, below.)

All Other Exporters

    We have also analyzed the issue of critical circumstances for 
companies in the ``all others'' category. During the initiation of the 
current investigation, the Department determined that Coprosider was 
the only exporter of the subject merchandise from Italy to the United 
States during the POI. Therefore, we believe that the additional 
imports of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Italy entered 
under HTS No. 7307.23.0000 consist of non-scope merchandise, and there 
are no other companies affected by this critical circumstances 
determination.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
information to be used in making our final determination.

All Others

    Pursuant to section 735(5)(A) of the Act, the estimated all-others 
rate is equal to the estimated weighted average dumping margin 
established for Coprosider, the only exporter/producer investigated.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, for Coprosider, 
the Department will direct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of subject merchandise from Italy that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 
90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. For all other companies, the Department will direct the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject 
merchandise from Italy that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit 
or posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margin 
indicated in the chart below. This suspension of liquidation will 
remain in effect until further notice.
    The margin in the preliminary determination is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Margin  (In
                  Exporter/Manufacturer                      percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coprosider..............................................           32.12
All others..............................................           32.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Critical Circumstances Determination

    We will make a final critical circumstances determination when we

[[Page 47393]]

issue our final determination in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination, or 45 days after our final 
determination, whether these imports are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the verification reports. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments would provide the Department with an 
additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a 
hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing will tentatively be 
held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, 
at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. In the event that the Department 
receives requests for hearings from parties to several stainless steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings cases, the Department may schedule a single 
hearing to encompass all those cases. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the 
scheduled time. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or 
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 
30 days of the publication of this notice. Oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation proceeds 
normally, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 26, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-19549 Filed 8-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P