[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10358-10363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5477]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-809]


Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

[[Page 10359]]

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged 
stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India (A-533-
809) manufactured by Isibars Ltd. (Isibars), Panchmahal Steel Ltd. 
(Panchmahal), Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Ltd. (Patheja), and Viraj 
Forgings Ltd. (Viraj). The period of review (POR) covers the period 
February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001. We preliminarily determine 
that sales of stainless steel flanges have been made below the normal 
value (NV) for some of the respondents. In addition, we have 
preliminarily determined to rescind the review with respect to Echjay 
Forgings Ltd. (Echjay) because it had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the period of review. If these preliminary results 
are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will 
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on 
the difference between United States price and the NV. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties 
who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with 
the argument 1) a statement of the issues and 2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam, Mike Heaney, or Robert 
James, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, 
telephone: (202) 482-5222, (202) 482-4475, or (202) 482-0649, 
respectively.
APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:
    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (April 1, 2001).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel flanges from India (59 FR 5994). On February 
14, 2001, the Department published the notice of ``Opportunity to 
Request Administrative Review'' for this order covering the period 
February 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001 ( 66 FR 10269). In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on February 28, 2001, Isibars, Panchmahal 
and Viraj requested a review, and the petitioners, under 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1), requested a review of Echjay, Isibars, Panchmahal, 
Patheja and Viraj. The petitioners are Gerlin Inc., Ideal Forging 
Corporation, and Maas Flange Corporation. On March 22, 2001, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
this antidumping duty administrative review (66 FR 16037).
    On July 5, 2001, we extended the time limit for the preliminary 
results of this administrative review to February 28, 2002 (66 FR 
35411).

Partial Rescission

    On April 4, 2001, Echjay informed the Department that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
of review. The Department conducted a query of U.S. Customs Service 
data on entries of stainless steel flanges from India made during the 
POR, and confirmed that Echjay made no entries during the review 
period. Therefore, we preliminarily determine to rescind the review 
with respect to Echjay.

Scope of the Review

    The products under review are certain forged stainless steel 
flanges, 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 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS 
subheadings are 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.

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, ``if an interested 
party or any other person--(A) withholds information that has been 
requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or 
in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) 
of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering 
authority...shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong. 2nd Sess. (1994), at 870. 
Furthermore, ``an affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties, Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27340 (May 17, 1997). The statute notes, in addition, that in 
selecting from among the facts available the Department may, subject to 
the corroboration requirements of section 776(c), rely upon information 
drawn from the petition, a final determination in the investigation, 
any previous administrative review conducted under section 751 (or 
section 753 for countervailing duty cases), or any other information on 
the record.
    Section 776(c) provides that, when the Department relies on 
secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course 
of a investigation or review, the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA states that the independent 
sources may include published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation or review. See SAA at 870. The SAA 
clarifies that ``corroborate''

[[Page 10360]]

means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. Id. As noted in Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    Patheja failed to respond to our May 28, 2001 antidumping 
questionnaire, and has provided no probative information for this 
review. Panchmahal failed to respond to our July 11, 2001 request for 
supplemental information concerning its section A, B, and C responses 
to our antidumping questionnaire, and failed to respond to our July 30, 
2001 request for cost of production/constructed value (COP/CV) 
information. Patheja's failure to respond to our antidumping 
questionnaire is a failure to provide requested information as defined 
by section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Panchmahal's failure to provide 
COP/CV information as well as Panchmahal's failure to provide a 
complete response to sections A, B, and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire is also a failure to provide requested information as 
defined by section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Additionally, both of these 
failures to provide requested information have significantly impeded 
this proceeding, as defined by section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 
Moreover, as Patheja and Panchmahal have supplied no information or 
explanation of why they did not respond to our questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire respectively, sections 782(c)(1), (d) and 
(e) of the Act are inapplicable. Accordingly, we preliminarily 
determine that the use of facts available under section 776(a) of the 
Act is warranted.
    Patheja never attempted to respond to our questionnaire or to 
explain why it could not respond. Panchmahal made an initial response, 
but thereafter, made no attempt to respond to our supplemental 
questionnaire. Moreover, Panchmahal provided no explanation as to why 
it could not respond. The lack of attempt to cooperate or even to offer 
an explanation for the failure to do so supports our conclusion that 
the two firms did not cooperate to the best of their ability. As noted 
above, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if the Department finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the 
interests of that party in selecting from among the facts available, 
which includes information derived from the petition. See SAA at 829-
831 and 870 (1994).
    Because we were unable to calculate margins for these respondents, 
we have assigned them the highest margin from any segment of this 
proceeding, in accordance with our practice. See e.g., Certain Cased 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and 
Rescission In Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
1638, 1640 (January 9, 2001). The highest margin assigned for flanges 
from India is 210 percent. See Amended Final Determination and 
Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from 
India, 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) (the Order). This margin was based 
on information in the petition.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on secondary information (such as that in 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 U.S. Customs Service data, and information obtained from 
interested parties during the particular investigation (see SAA at 
870). Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, 
to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information used.
    To assess the reliability of the petition margin, in accordance 
with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined 
the key elements of the calculations of export price and normal value 
upon which the petitioners based their margins for the petition. The 
U.S. prices in the petition were based on quotes to U.S. customers, 
most of which were obtained through market research. See Petition for 
the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, December 29, 1993. We were able 
to corroborate the U.S. prices in the petition by comparing these 
prices to publicly available information based on IM-145 import 
statistics. See Memorandum from Thomas Killiam, Case Analyst to the 
File, Corroboration of Petition Rate for Use as Facts Available, 
January 10, 2002.
    The normal values in the petition were based on actual price 
quotations obtained through market research. The Department did not 
receive any useful information from Patheja, and we were unable to 
verify the partial information submitted by Panchmahal prior to its 
withdrawal from participation in the review. The Department is not 
aware of other independent sources of information that would enable it 
to corroborate the margin calculations in the petition further. We note 
that four Indian manufacturers currently have a 210 percent margin 
under this order.
    The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, codified at 
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, the SAA at 870 states 
specifically that, where ``corroboration may not be practicable in a 
given circumstance,'' the Department may nevertheless apply an adverse 
inference. The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the Department need not prove 
that the facts available are the best alternative information. 
Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate 
information contained in the petition and in accordance with 776(c) of 
the Act, which discusses facts available and corroboration, we consider 
the margins in the petition to be corroborated to the extent 
practicable for purposes of this preliminary determination (see Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 84 (January 4, 
1999)).

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of flanges from India were made in the 
United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price 
(EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as 
described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated EPs and CEPs and compared 
these prices to weighted-average normal values or CVs, as appropriate.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772 of the Act, we calculated either an 
EP or a CEP, depending on the nature of each

[[Page 10361]]

sale. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the 
exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP 
as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the 
United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, 
as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
    We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on prices charged 
to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the 
date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed C&F, CIF 
duty paid, FOB, or ex-dock duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We added to U.S. price amounts for 
duty drawback, when reported, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including: foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, bank export document handling charges, 
ocean freight, and marine insurance.
    For CEP sales, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we 
deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were 
incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, 
including direct selling expenses (i.e., credit), and imputed inventory 
carrying costs. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we 
deducted an amount for profit allocated to the expenses deducted under 
sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Act.
    For these preliminary results, for Viraj's U.S. prices we have used 
Viraj's prices to its first unaffiliated U.S. customers. In the case of 
one of Viraj's U.S. customers, we have solicited information bearing on 
a possible affiliation with Viraj. Prior to issuing our final results, 
we will further examine whether sales from Viraj to the customer in 
question, rather than sales from that customer in question to its own 
customers, constitute the appropriate basis for U.S. price. We invite 
comments on this issue.

Normal Value

A. Viability

    In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), 
for each respondent we compared the volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Since we found no reason to determine that quantity was 
not the appropriate basis for these comparisons, we did not use value 
as the measure. See 351.404(b)(2).
    We based our comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume 
of home market sales on reported stainless steel flange weight, rather 
than on number of pieces. The record demonstrates that there can be 
large differences between the weight (and corresponding cost and price) 
of stainless steel flanges based on relative sizes, so comparisons of 
aggregate data would be distorted for these products if volume 
comparisons were based on the number of pieces.
    We determined that for Viraj, the home market was viable because 
Viraj's home market sales were greater than 5 percent of its U.S. sales 
based on aggregate volume by weight. Because Isibars reported no home 
market or third country sales, we based NV on CV, pursuant to section 
351.404(f) of the Department's regulations.

B. Arm's Length Sales

    Since no information on the record indicates any comparison market 
sales to affiliates, we did not use an arm's-length test for comparison 
market sales.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    The petitioners in this proceeding filed timely sales-below-cost 
allegations with regard to Viraj. See petitioners' letters of June 6, 
2001. The petitioners' allegations were based on the respondents' 
questionnaire responses. We found that petitioners' methodology 
provided the Department with a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that sales in the home market had been made at prices below the COP. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an 
investigation to determine whether Viraj's sales of flanges were made 
at prices below COP during the POR. See memorandum from Thomas Killiam, 
Case Analyst, to Richard Weible, Office Director, Petitioners' 
Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production, dated July 1, 2001.
    Each respondent defined its unique products, and thus its costs, 
based on different product characteristics. We determined that only 
grade, type, size, pressure rating, and finish were required to define 
models for purposes of matching. To make the model definitions for the 
cost test identical to those in the model match, we used the above 
criteria to define models and calculate costs. Where necessary, we 
converted costs from a per-piece basis to a per-kilogram basis. See the 
company-specific analysis memoranda for Isibars and Viraj, dated 
concurrently with this notice and available in the Central Records 
Unit.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
for Viraj based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication 
employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, 
and administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing. We relied on the home 
market sales and COP information provided by Viraj. After calculating 
COP, we tested whether home market sales of stainless steel flanges 
were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-
specific COPs to the reported home market prices less movement charges, 
discounts, and rebates.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's home market sales for a model are at prices 
less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
model because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made 
within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 
20 percent or more of a respondent's home market sales of a given model 
are at prices less than COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because 
they are 1) made within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, 
and 2) based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the 
POR, were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    The results of our cost test for Viraj indicated that for certain 
comparison market models, less than 20 percent of the sales of the 
model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of 
these comparison market models in our analysis and used them as the 
basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that within an 
extended period of time (one year, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act), for certain comparison market

[[Page 10362]]

models, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were sold 
at prices below COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 
we therefore excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used 
the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.

D. Product Comparisons

    We compared Viraj's U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the 
foreign like product in the home market. We considered stainless steel 
flanges identical based on grade, type, size, pressure rating and 
finish. We used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise (DIFMER) cost 
deviation cap as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar 
merchandise, which we calculated as the absolute value of the 
difference between the U.S. and comparison market variable costs of 
manufacturing divided by the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. 
product. For Isibars we compared U.S. price to CV.

E. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the 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 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 CV, that of the sales from 
which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. With respect to U.S. price 
for EP transactions, the LOT is also that of the starting-price sale, 
which is usually from the exporter to the importer. For CEP, the LOT is 
that of the sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different 
level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing 
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between 
the producer and the unaffiliated customer. In analyzing the selling 
activities of the respondents, we did not note any significant 
differences in functions provided in any of the markets. Based upon the 
record evidence, we have determined that for each respondent there is 
one LOT for all EP sales, the same LOT as for all comparison market 
sales. Accordingly, because we find the U.S. sales and comparison 
market sales to be at the same LOT, no LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) is warranted.

F. Comparison Market Price

    We based comparison market prices on the packed, ex-factory or 
delivered prices to the unaffiliated purchasers in the comparison 
market. We made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement 
expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 
In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable 
to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparison to EP 
we made COS adjustments by deducting comparison market direct selling 
expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match for 
the U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and 
fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and 
profit. In accordance with 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A 
expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average 
comparison market selling expenses. Where appropriate, we made COS 
adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.410. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for 
comparison market indirect selling expenses to offset commissions in EP 
comparisons.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margins for the period February 1, 1999, through 
January 31, 2000, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer / Exporter                     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isibars.....................................................           0
Panchmahal..................................................      210.00
Patheja.....................................................      210.00
Viraj.......................................................        3.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. 
See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days 
after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, 
unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later 
than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who 
submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the 
argument 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the 
argument and (3) a table of authorities. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a 
hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate assessment rates for the 
merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the 
total quantity (in kilograms) of the sales used to calculate those 
duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of 
merchandise of that manufacturer/exporter made during the POR. The 
Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service upon completion of the review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative 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 administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of 
administrative 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 will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received a company-specific rate; (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 that established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of this review, or 
the LTFV

[[Page 10363]]

investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is 
a firm covered in this review or any previous reviews, the cash deposit 
rate will be 162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994) (February 9, 1994).
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    February 28, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-5477 Filed 3-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S