[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47393-47398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-565-801]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the Philippines.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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, DC 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 1, 2000).

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from the Philippines 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) (Initiation Notice). 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 Initiation Notice, 65 FR 
at 4596). We received a response from Coprosider S.p.A. (Coprosider) on 
February 1, 2000, agreeing with the scope of the investigation. On 
February 3, 2000, Wilh. Schulz GmbH (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. Bdh.; Coprosider; and 
Alloy Piping Products, Inc.; Flowline Division of Markovitz 
Enterprises, Inc.; Gerlin, Inc.; and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc. 
(petitioners). On February 8, 2000 and February 18, 2000, Schulz filed 
its comments on our proposed concordance.
    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. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, 65 FR 
9298, (February 24, 2000) (ITC Preliminary Determination).
    On January 24, 2000, the Department issued Section A of its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Enlin Steel Corporation (Enlin) and 
Tung Fong Industrial Co., Inc., (Tung Fong). On February 7, 2000, the 
Department received Enlin's and Tung Fong's responses to Question 1 of 
Section A. The Department received the remainder of Enlin's and Tung 
Fong's section A responses on February 22, 2000. On March 1, 2000, the 
Department issued a memorandum announcing its determination that it 
would only be able to analyze the response of Enlin in this 
investigation. On March 2, 2000, petitioners filed comments on Tung 
Fong's section A response. On March 6, 2000, Tung Fong requested to be 
a voluntary respondent. On March 9, 2000, the Department issued 
sections B-E of its antidumping duty questionnaire to Enlin, requesting 
that Enlin respond

[[Page 47394]]

to sections B and C. On March 15, 2000, petitioners submitted comments 
on Enlin's section A response. On May 1, 2000, the Department received 
from Enlin its response to sections B and C of the Department's 
questionnaire. Also on May 1, 2000, Tung Fong submitted a voluntary 
section B and C questionnaire response. On May 19, 2000, petitioners 
submitted comments on Enlin's sections B and C responses. On May 21, 
2000, petitioners alleged that sales had been made below the cost of 
production (COP) in Enlin's third-country market. On June 1, 2000, the 
Department issued to Enlin a supplemental questionnaire with respect to 
its sections A, B and C responses. Also on June 1, 2000, the Department 
initiated a COP investigation with respect to Enlin's third-country 
sales. On June 2, 2000, the Department requested that Enlin respond to 
section D of the March 9, 2000 questionnaire. On June 22, 2000, six 
days after the due date for Enlin's response to the supplemental 
questionnaire, Enlin informed the Department that it would not respond 
any further to the Department's requests for information. On June 27, 
2000, petitioners submitted comments on Tung Fong's sections B and C 
responses. On June 30, 2000, petitioners alleged critical circumstances 
exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from the 
Philippines. Tung Fong made a voluntary section D response on July 5, 
2000. On July 11, 2000, petitioners submitted comments on Tung Fong's 
section D response. On July 14, 2000, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to Tung Fong regarding its sections A, B, C, 
and D responses.
    In addition, on April 13, 2000, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice postponing the preliminary determination 
until July 26, 2000. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Antidumping Duty Determinations: Stainless Steel Butt-weld Pipe 
Fittings from Germany, Italy, Malaysia and the Philippines, 65 FR 19876 
(April 13, 2000).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is certain 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings. Certain stainless steel butt-
weld 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.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 1998 through 
September 30, 1999.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Acts gives the 
Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate 
either: (1) A sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that 
is statistically valid based on the information available at the time 
of selection, or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest 
volume of the subject merchandise that can be reasonably examined.
    After consideration of the complexities expected to arise in these 
proceedings and the resources available to the Department, we 
determined that it was not practicable in these investigations to 
examine all known producers/exporters of subject merchandise. With 
respect to the Philippines, we determined that, given our resources, we 
would be able to investigate only one such company. We selected Enlin 
as the mandatory respondent for the Philippines because it was the 
respondent with the greatest export volume. (For a more detailed 
discussion of respondent selection in these investigations, see the 
Department's Respondent Selection Memorandum dated March 1, 2000, 
available in room B-099 of the Department of Commerce building.) 
However, following Enlin's withdrawal from the investigation on June 
22, 2000, the Department determined to investigate Tung Fong as a 
voluntary respondent. Upon review of Tung Fong's response, we found 
that we needed additional information from Tung Fong before we could 
calculate a dumping margin. We found, for instance, that there were 
inconsistencies in the reporting of some control numbers. Tung Fong had 
also failed to provide invoice dates on its sales listings, and had not 
supplied complete sample sales documentation. It had also not reported 
all of the sales adjustments necessary to make a dumping calculation. 
There also appeared to be discrepancies on the record regarding the 
amount of Tung Fong's input material costs. Thus, as noted above, we 
issued Tung Fong a supplemental questionnaire on July 14, 2000. 
However, insufficient time remained for Tung Fong to respond to the 
supplemental questionnaire and for the Department to analyze it prior 
to the due date for the preliminary determination. Tung Fong's response 
is due July 28, 2000. We will make a calculation of Tung Fong's dumping 
margin and issue an analysis following issuance of this preliminary 
determination as soon as practicable. We will disclose the results of 
this calculation and the analysis incorporated therein to the 
interested parties; a public version of this analysis will be available 
to the public in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building.

Facts Available

    As noted above under ``Case History,'' Enlin failed to respond to 
the Department's supplemental questionnaire regarding its sections A, 
B, and C responses, and notified the Department that it did not intend 
to respond any further to the Department's requests for information. 
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party (A) 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the

[[Page 47395]]

form or manner requested, subject to section 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Because Enlin failed to respond to our request for 
additional information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act we 
resorted to the facts otherwise available to calculate the dumping 
margin for this company.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an 
inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's requests for necessary information. See also, Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 
(1994) (SAA) at 870. Failure by Enlin to respond to the Department's 
supplemental questionnaire constitutes a failure to act to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information within the meaning 
of section 776 of the Act. Because Enlin failed to respond, the 
Department has determined that, in selecting among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting the facts 
available for this company.
    Because we were unable to calculate a margin for Enlin, we assigned 
it the highest margin alleged in the amended petition calculations, 
submitted January 10, 2000. See, Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany, 
63 FR 10847 (March 5, 1998). The highest petition margin is 60.17 
percent. See Initiation Notice, 65 FR at 4599.
    Section 776(b)(1) of the Act states that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from the petition. See also, 
SAA at 829-831. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the 
Department relies on secondary information (e.g., the petition) in 
using the facts otherwise available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value (see, SAA at 870). The SAA also states that independent 
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation (see, SAA at 870).
    We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the 
petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition to the 
extent appropriate information was available for this purpose. See, 
Import Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist (January 
18, 2000) for a discussion of the margin calculations in the petition. 
In addition, in order to determine the probative value of the margins 
in the petition for use as adverse facts available for purposes of this 
determination, we examined the evidence supporting the calculations in 
the petition. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the export price 
(EP) and normal value (NV) calculations on which the margins in the 
petitions were based. Our review of the EP and NV calculations 
indicated that the information in the petition has probative value, as 
certain information included in the margin calculations in the petition 
is from public sources concurrent, for the most part, with the POI 
(e.g., inland freight, international freight and insurance, import 
duties). For purposes of this preliminary determination, the Department 
compared the export prices alleged by the petitioners for sales to the 
first unaffiliated purchasers with contemporaneous, average unit prices 
values of U.S. imports classified under the appropriate HTS number. See 
Import Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist, January 
18, 2000, pp. 3-4. We noted that the unit values of the U.S. price 
quotes submitted by the petitioners were well within the range of the 
average unit values reported by U.S. Customs. U.S. official import 
statistics are sources which we consider to require no further 
corroboration by the Department. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails from the People's 
Republic of China, 62 FR 51410, 51412, (October 1, 1997).
    However, with respect to certain other data included in the margin 
calculations of the petition (e.g., home market unit prices), neither 
respondents nor other interested parties provided the Department with 
further relevant information and the Department is aware of no other 
independent sources of information that would enable it to further 
corroborate the remaining components of the margin calculation in the 
petition. The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, 19 
CFR 351.308(d), states ``[t]he fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from 
applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary 
information in question.'' Additionally, we note that the SAA at 870 
specifically states that, where ``corroboration may not be practicable 
in a given circumstance,'' the Department may nevertheless apply an 
adverse inference. Furthermore, as indicated above, the Department 
corroborated numerous parts of the petition, including the 
contemporaneity of the adjustments and the range of the U.S. price 
quotes as compared to U.S. selling prices recorded by Customs data. 
Accordingly, we find, for purposes of this preliminary determination, 
that this information is corroborated to the extent practicable. We 
will further consider this issue for the final determination based upon 
any additional information available to the Department at that time.

All Others

    On March 6, 2000 Tung Fong requested that it be permitted to 
participate as a voluntary respondent in this investigation. It 
submitted voluntary responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire 
on March 1, 2000, and a voluntary section D response on July 5, 2000. 
(Tung Fong had submitted mandatory section A responses on February 7, 
2000 and February 22, 2000.) It voluntarily submitted additional 
information in a June 27, 2000 submission following comments from 
petitioners submitted June 6 and June 23, 2000. We issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to Tung Fong on July 14, 2000, the response 
for which is due July 28, 2000. We will make a preliminary calculation 
of Tung Fong's dumping margin and issue an analysis following issuance 
of this preliminary determination. In this preliminary determination, 
we have assigned Tung Fong the non-adverse all-others rate, as 
described below, because currently there is insufficient information 
available for us to calculate a separate margin for Tung Fong.
    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated 
weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis or are 
determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may 
use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others rate 
for exporters and producers not individually investigated. Our recent 
practice under these circumstances has been to assign as the ``all 
others'' rate the simple average of the margins in the petition. See, 
e.g.,

[[Page 47396]]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 31, 
1999); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coil from Italy, 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March 21, 
1999). In accordance with our recent practice, we are basing the ``all 
others'' rate in this investigation on the simple average of margins in 
the petition, which is 34.67 percent.

Critical Circumstances

    On June 30, 2000, the petitioners made a timely allegation that 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from 
the Philippines. According to section 733(e)(1) of the Act, if critical 
circumstances are alleged under section 733(e) of the Act, the 
Department must examine whether 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 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. Section 351.206(h)(1) of 
the Department's regulations provides that, in determining whether 
imports of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' 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 during the ``relatively short period'' of over 15 percent 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' normally as the period 
beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later.
    Because we are not aware of any antidumping order in any country on 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from the Philippines, we do not 
find that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there 
is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports 
in the United States or elsewhere. Therefore, we must look to whether 
there was importer knowledge under section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act.
    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 the subject merchandise at less than fair value, the 
Department's normal practice is to consider margins of 15 percent or 
more sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping for constructed export 
price sales (CEP), and margins of 25 percent or more sufficient to 
impute knowledge for EP sales. See, Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997). As 
discussed above, we have applied, as adverse facts available for Enlin, 
the highest of the dumping margins presented in the petition and 
corroborated by the Department. This margin is in excess of 25 percent. 
Therefore, we impute knowledge of dumping in regard to exports by this 
company.
    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 looks to the preliminary injury determination of 
the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material 
injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department normally 
determines that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge 
that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped 
imports. The ITC has found that a reasonable indication of present 
material injury exists in regard to the Philippines. See ITC 
Preliminary Determination 65 FR at 9299. 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 from Enlin.
    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' the Department typically compares the 
import volume of the subject merchandise for at least three months 
immediately preceding and following the filing of the petition. Imports 
normally will be considered massive when imports have increased by 15 
percent or more during this ``relatively short period.'' Since there is 
no verifiable information on the record with respect to Enlin's import 
volumes, we must use the facts available in accordance with section 776 
of the Act. See also Comment 2 of the Decision Memo, Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold Rolled 
Carbon Quality Steel Flat Products from Venezuela, 65 FR 18047, 18049 
(April 6, 2000). Accordingly, we examined U.S. Customs data on imports 
of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from the Philippines in 
order to determine whether these data reasonably preclude an increase 
in shipments of 15 percent or more within a relatively short period for 
Enlin. These data do not permit the Department to ascertain the import 
volumes for any individual company that failed to provide verifiable 
information.
    As discussed above in the ``Facts Available'' section, Enlin has 
not cooperated to the best of its ability in this investigation, and 
application of adverse facts available is appropriate. Since there is 
no verified information on the record with respect to Enlin's volume of 
imports, and U.S. import statistics are unavailable because stainless 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings are entered under an HTSUS basket 
category which includes products other than subject merchandise, we 
have no choice but to apply the adverse inference that Enlin has made 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period of time. Therefore, we find that the second criterion for 
determining whether critical circumstances exist with respect to 
Enlin's exports of subject merchandise has been met. See, e.g., Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Collated 
Roofing Nails from Taiwan, 62 FR 51427, 51429 (October 1, 1997) and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Affirmative Finding of Critical Circumstances: Elastic Rubber 
Tape from India, 64 FR 19123, 19124 (April 19, 1999). Because all of 
the necessary criteria have been met, in accordance with section 733(e) 
of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to fittings produced by Enlin.
    In regard to the ``all others'' category, it is the Department's 
normal practice to conduct its critical circumstances analysis based on 
the experience of investigated companies. See, Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey (Rebars from Turkey), 62 FR 9737, 9741 
(March 4, 1997); see also Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled, Flat-Rolled Carbon Steel Quality 
Products from Venezuela, 64 FR 61826, 61832 (November 15, 1999). (For 
the purpose of this critical circumstances determination, are we 
including Tung

[[Page 47397]]

Fong among the ``all other'' companies because we have no relevant 
information on the record particular to Tung Fong.) In Rebars from 
Turkey, the Department determined that, because it found critical 
circumstances existed for three out of the four companies investigated, 
critical circumstances also existed for companies covered by the ``all 
others'' rate. However, in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Japan (Stainless Steel from Japan), 64 FR 30574 (June 8, 1999), the 
Department did not extend its affirmative critical circumstances 
findings to the ``all others'' category while finding affirmative 
critical circumstances for four of the five respondents, because the 
affirmative determinations were based on adverse facts available. 
Consistent with Stainless Steel from Japan, we believe it is 
appropriate to apply the traditional critical circumstances criteria to 
the ``all others'' category.
    First, 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 the subject merchandise at less than fair value, 
we look to the ``all others'' rate, which is based, in the instant 
case, on facts available. The dumping margin for the ``all others'' 
category in the instant case, 34.67 percent, exceeds the 15 percent or 
more threshold necessary to impute knowledge of dumping for CEP sales, 
and the 25 percent or more sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping 
for EP sales. Second, based on the ITC's preliminary material injury 
determination, we also find that importers knew or should have known 
that there would be material injury from the dumped merchandise. 
Finally, with respect to massive imports, we are unable to base our 
determination on our findings for the mandatory respondent because our 
determination for the mandatory respondent was based on facts 
available. We have not inferred, as facts available, that massive 
imports exist for ``all others'' because, unlike Enlin, the ``all 
others'' companies have not failed to cooperate in this investigation. 
Therefore, an adverse inference with respect to shipment levels by the 
``all others'' companies is not appropriate.
    Instead, consistent with the approach taken in recent 
investigations, we examined U.S. Customs data on overall imports from 
the Philippines in order to see if we could ascertain whether an 
increase in shipments of greater than 15 percent or more occurred 
within a relatively short period following the point at which importers 
had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan (Hot-Rolled Steel from Japan), 
64 FR 24329, 24337 (May 6, 1999), Notice of Final Determinations of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-
Quality Steel Products From Argentina, Japan and Thailand (Cold-Rolled 
Steel from Japan) 65 FR 5520, 5527 (February 4, 2000), and Notice of 
Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Venezuela, 64 FR 
61826, 61832 (November 15, 1999).
    For the purposes of this preliminary determination we examined data 
for the four months preceding and the four months following the filing 
of the petition. Information on the record indicates that these data 
cover an HTS category that includes merchandise other than subject 
merchandise. Therefore, we cannot rely on these data in determining 
whether there were massive imports for the ``all others'' category. 
Because we are unable to determine on the basis of record evidence that 
massive imports of subject merchandise from the producers included in 
the ``all others'' category did occur and, consequently, that the third 
criterion necessary for determining affirmative critical circumstances 
has been met, we have preliminarily determined that critical 
circumstances do not exist for imports from the Philippines of 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings for companies in the ``all 
others'' category.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, for Enlin, we are 
directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
subject merchandise from the Philippines that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication 
which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. For Tung Fong and all other companies, we will 
instruct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
subject merchandise from the Philippines that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs 
Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the 
dumping margin indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. 
The dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Exporter/manufacturer                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enlin Steel Corporation....................................        60.17
Tung Fong Industrial Co., Ltd..............................        34.67
All Others.................................................        34.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 comments would provide the Department with an additional 
copy of a 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. Requests should specify the 
number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be 
discussed. Oral

[[Page 47398]]

presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this 
investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination 
no later than 75 days after the date 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. 00-19550 Filed 8-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P