[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48244-48245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-23330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-809]


Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged 
stainless steel flanges (flanges) from India (66 FR 14127). The review 
covers flanges manufactured by Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay), Isibars 
Ltd. (Isibars), Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (Panchmahal), Patheja Forgings 
and Auto Parts Ltd. (Patheja), and Viraj Forgings Ltd. (Viraj). The 
period of review (POR) is February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000. 
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary 
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping 
margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or Robert James, 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

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

Background

    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review, 
and we received comments and rebuttals from the petitioner, and from 
the Coalition Against Indian Flanges, and we received comments from 
respondents Isibars, Panchmahal, and Viraj.

Scope of Review

    The products under review are certain forged stainless steel 
flanges from India, both 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 connection; 
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 HTSUS. Although the HTSUS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of 
whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review.

Verifications

    On November 30 and December 1 and 2, 2000, the Department conducted 
a verification of the antidumping response submitted by Panchmahal; see 
the February 15, 2001 memorandum to the file from Thomas Killiam, 
``Sales Verification of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (PSL)'' (Panchmahal 
verification report). From December 4 through December 6, 2000, the 
Department conducted a verification of Viraj; see the February 7, 2001 
memorandum to the file from Thomas Killiam, ``Sales Verification of 
Viraj Forgings'' (Viraj verification report). Both companies submitted 
data corrections at verification.

Use of Facts Available

    At the verification of Panchmahal, we discovered that sales 
reported as domestic were actually clearly labeled as export (see 
Panchmahal verification report at 9-10). Removing these sales from 
Panchmahal's home market reduced its home market volume to less than 5% 
of U.S. sales, thus making the home market not viable per section 
351.404(b)(2) of the Department's regulations. For the preliminary 
results, we used constructed value for Panchmahal's normal value. 
However, for these final results, we have reconsidered our preliminary 
determination and, based on our findings at verification and 
petitioner's arguments in its case brief, we have determined that 
application of adverse facts available is appropriate. See Memorandum 
from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group 
III, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
``Issues and Decisions Memorandum for the Final Results in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Forged Stainless 
Steel Flanges from India (Flanges) from India'' (Decision Memo) dated 
concurrently with this notice.
    As in the preliminary results, and for the reasons stated therein, 
we have continued to assign to Patheja the rate of 210%, based on 
adverse facts available.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We received no briefs on Echjay, and made no changes in our 
analysis. Isibars, Panchmahal and Viraj submitted briefs, and Viraj 
gave a rebuttal brief. Petitioners submitted briefs on Panchmahal and 
Viraj, and rebuttal briefs to these two companies' briefs and also to 
Isibars' brief. The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by 
parties to this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum'' (``Decision Memo'') from Joseph A. Spetrini, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Important Administration, to Faryar 
Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated 
concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice. 
A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have 
responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to 
this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Record Unit, 
room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a 
complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on 
the International Trade Administration's Web site at

[[Page 48245]]

www.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our verification and analysis of the comments received, we 
have changed our approach to the margin calculation for Panchmahal and 
Isibars. See the Decision Memo.

Final Results of the Review

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exists for the period February 1, 1999, through January 31, 2000:

            Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echjay.....................................................            0
Isibars....................................................         6.76
Panchmahal.................................................        61.31
Patheja....................................................       210.00
Viraj......................................................        21.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where applicable we calculated import-specific duty assessment 
rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on appropriate entries, by applying the assessment 
rate to the entered value of the merchandise.
    In addition, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice for all shipments of stainless steel 
flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the companies reviewed, the cash deposit 
rates will be the rates listed above, (2) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a 
previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent 
final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous 
segment of this proceeding, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise 
in these final results of review or in the most recent segment of the 
proceeding in which that manufacturer participated; and (4) if neither 
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or 
in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will 
be 162.14 percent, the all others rate established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214.

    September 5, 2001.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comments

    Isibars: Petitioners object to Isibars' sales data revisions; 
Isibars objects to the use of constructed value instead of third 
country sales; Isibars objects to the Department's surrogate company 
choice; Isibars objects to the financial results period used for 
surrogate expense data; Isibars claims it did not get service of 
Echjay's published annual reports;
    Panchmahal: Petitioners claim Panchmahal's misreported sales 
merit adverse facts available; Petitioners urge a more adverse 
approach to Constructed Value (moot); Petitioners urge a more 
adverse approach to Brokerage and Handling (moot); Panchmahal 
objects to the expense ratios from a surrogate company (moot);
    Viraj: Petitioners claim Viraj improperly reported duty 
drawback; Petitioners claim fixed overhead was understated; 
Petitioners claim net interest expense was understated; Viraj asks 
that prices and costs be calculated per-piece, not per-kilogram; 
Viraj argues that the DIFMER Test and Per-Kilogram Costs distort 
results; Viraj objects to comparisons of rough to finished flanges; 
Viraj objects to the comparison of ASTM to DIN standard merchandise; 
Viraj objects to the use of its reported weights instead of its 
standard weights.
[FR Doc. 01-23330 Filed 9-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P