[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8380-8382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2681]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-809]


Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Preliminary 
Results of New Shipper Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of new shipper review: certain 
forged stainless steel flanges from India.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged 
stainless steel flanges from India in response to a request by an 
Indian exporter of subject merchandise, Snowdrop Trading PVT LTD 
(Snowdrop). As indicated in the Department's initiation of this review 
(65 FR 17485), the review covers sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States during the period of review (POR), February 1, 1999 
through February 29, 2000.
    We have preliminarily determined that Snowdrop made sales below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service not to assess 
antidumping duties on entries subject to this review.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results, and are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement 
of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or Robert James, Office 
8, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
5222 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on certain 
forged stainless steel flanges from India on February 9, 1994 (59 FR 
5994). Having received a timely request for a new shipper review from 
Snowdrop, the Department initiated this review on March 28, 2000 (65 FR 
17485 (April 3, 2000)), in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 
Tariff Act and section 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations. 
Snowdrop provided responses to the Department's questionnaires on April 
24, 2000 (Section A), May 15, 2000 (Sections B and C), and August 28, 
2000 (supplemental). The Department's analysis of Snowdrop's data is 
presented in a Memorandum from Thomas Killiam to the file, dated 
January 19, 2001 (Analysis Memorandum).

Scope of Review

    The products under review are certain forged stainless steel 
flanges both

[[Page 8381]]

finished and not-finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM 
A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope 
includes five general types of flanges. They are weld neck, used for 
butt-weld line connections, threaded, used for threaded line 
connections, slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line 
connections, socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession, 
and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the 
scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the 
above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically 
excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. 
Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to 
specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are 
currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). Although 
the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

Verification

    On November 28, 2000, the Department visited Snowdrop's 
headquarters in Bandra West, Mumbai, India, and conducted a 
verification of its questionnaire responses. Our findings are discussed 
in a January 19, 2001 memorandum from Thomas Killiam to the file, 
subject ``Sales Verification of Snowdrop Trading PVT. LTD.--Stainless 
Steel Flanges from India.''

Home Market Viability

    In its April 24, 2000 submission, Snowdrop indicated that it had 
made no sales of certain forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) in 
the home market during the POR, and submitted sales to Canada as the 
comparison, or third country, market. In order to determine whether 
there is a sufficient volume of sales in the comparison market to serve 
as a viable basis for calculating normal value (NV), we compared 
Snowdrop's volume (by weight) of third country market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume (by weight) of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Tariff Act. Because Snowdrop's aggregate volume of Canadian sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
the Canadian market was viable for Snowdrop. The record of this review 
does not indicate that there was another viable third country market, 
so we used the Canadian market sales as a basis for NV.

Product Comparisons

    Because Snowdrop made a contemporaneous sale to the Canadian market 
of merchandise that we matched to the merchandise which Snowdrop sold 
in the U.S. market, and there were no differences in the reported 
variable cost of manufacturing (based on Snowdrop's reported cost of 
acquisition), it was not necessary to make any adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise as called for by section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Snowdrop's sales of flanges to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared export price (EP) to the 
NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
the notice, below. Because there were only single instances of sales of 
particular models in the comparison market, it was not appropriate to 
calculate weighted average NVs; instead, we compared the EP of the U.S. 
sale to the NV of the most similar merchandise sold in the third 
country contemporaneously.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or constructed EP 
(CEP) transaction. The LOT in the comparison market is that of the 
starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is based on 
constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we derive selling, 
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. With respect to 
U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT is also the level of the 
starting-price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the 
importer. For CEP, the LOT is the level of the constructed sale from 
the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and third country market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff 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).
    Snowdrop reported one customer category and one channel of 
distribution (i.e., sales to unaffiliated distributors) for its third 
country market sales. Snowdrop reported EP sales in the U.S. market. 
For EP sales, Snowdrop also reported one customer category and one 
channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to importer distributors). 
Snowdrop stated in its response that its EP sales were made at the same 
LOT as third country market sales to unaffiliated importer 
distributors, and did not request a LOT adjustment. We have determined 
that there is one LOT for all EP sales and that it is the same LOT as 
that in the third country market. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. 
sales and third country market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT 
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) is warranted.

United States Price

    Snowdrop reported as EP transactions sales of subject merchandise 
to unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation. We calculated EP 
in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, because CEP 
methodology was not indicated by other facts on the record. We based EP 
on the price to the unaffiliated foreign purchaser. We made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act. See the Analysis Memorandum.
    We have asked Snowdrop to clarify several remaining uncertainties 
in regards to the U.S. transaction. We may incorporate additional 
information in the final results.

Normal Value

    We calculated NV based on C&F prices to unaffiliated customers, and 
made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act for 
differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses. We 
deducted movement expenses and bank charges from NV, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. Snowdrop reported that 
it incurred no packing costs per se, because packing costs were 
included in the prices which Snowdrop's suppliers' charged it. We added 
U.S. credit expense and deducted third country credit expense. See the 
Analysis Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Tariff Act, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates

[[Page 8382]]

of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that for the 
period February 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000, the weighted-average 
dumping margin for Snowdrop is 24.79 percent.
    In accordance with section 351.224(b) of our regulations, we will 
disclose to the relevant parties the calculations performed for these 
preliminary results. An interested party may request a hearing within 
thirty days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of publication 
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised 
in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date 
of publication of this notice. In accordance with 351.214(i)(1) of our 
regulations, the Department will issue the final results of this new 
shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in the briefs, within 90 days of issuance of these 
preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.
    Upon completion of this new shipper review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to Customs. Snowdrop did not report entered 
value; we will calculate Snowdrop's duty assessment rate based on the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales, calculated as the difference between NV and EP, to the 
total quantity of examined sales. The rate will be assessed uniformly 
on all entries made during the POR. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to Customs.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this new shipper review for all 
shipments of flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results 
of this new shipper review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the 
Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Snowdrop will be the rate 
established in the final results of this new shipper review; (2) for 
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue 
to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the 
original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the 
cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the ``all-others'' rate 
established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative or 
new shipper review for a subsequent review period.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: January 22, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-2681 Filed 1-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P