[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46953-46955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18041]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-813]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review; Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from TK Corporation, the Department 
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from 
Korea. This new shipper review covers imports of subject merchandise 
from TK Corporation. The period of review is February 1, 2001 through 
July 31, 2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, 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, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 
(202) 482-2924, (202) 482-4475, 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 (URAA). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1, 2001).

Background

    On February 23, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea. See 
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings from Korea, 58 FR 11029 (February 23, 1993). On August 31, 
2001, TK Corporation, a producer and exporter of the subject 
merchandise during the period of review (POR), requested that the 
Department conduct an antidumping duty new shipper review of the 
antidumping duty order. TK Corporation certified it did not export 
subject merchandise to the United States during the period of the 
investigation (POI) (December 1, 1991 through May 30, 1992), and that 
it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI. TK Corporation also 
submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped 
the subject merchandise for export to the United States, the volume 
shipped, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in 
the United States. On October 5, 2001, the Department initiated a new 
shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings from Korea. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings from Korea: Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping 
Duty Review, 66 FR 51017 (October 5, 2001).
    On October 12, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire. On November 9, 2001, the Department received TK 
Corporation's Section A response to the questionnaire; TK Corporation 
filed its Sections B and C responses on November 30, 2001. On January 
22, 2002, the Department issued a Sections A-C supplemental 
questionnaire, to which TK Corporation responded on Februry 6, 2002.
    On April 3, 2002 the Department extended the time limit for 
completion of the preliminary results. See Notice of Extension of Time 
Limit of Preliminary

[[Page 46954]]

Results of New Shipper Review: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
from Korea, 67 FR 15793 (April 3, 2002).

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2001 through July 31, 2001.

Scope of the Review

    The products subject to this review are certain welded stainless 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings), whether finished or 
unfinished, under 14 inches in inside diameter.
    Pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems 
where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise 
can be used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor 
in designing the piping system: (1) corrosion of the piping system will 
occur if material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination 
of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; 
(3) high temperatures are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are 
present; (5) high pressures are contained within the system.
    Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, and the following five 
are the most basic: ``elbows,'' ``tees,'' ``reducers,'' ``stub ends,'' 
and ``caps.'' The edges of finished fittings are beveled. Threaded, 
grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from this review. The pipe 
fittings subject to this review are classifiable under subheading 
7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings covered by the ``Scope of 
the Review'' section of this notice, supra, which were produced and 
sold by TK Corporation in the home market during the POR to be foreign 
like products for the purpose of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales of stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings.
    We relied on six characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign like product: type, 
grade, seam, size, schedule, and blank/finished. We did not need to 
perform a twenty-percent difference in merchandise (DIFMER) test or 
make a DIFMER adjustment because there were contemporaneous home market 
sales of identical merchandise, based on all six characteristics, to 
compare to TK Corporation's U.S. sales. We used only these 
contemporaneous identical home market sales in calculating the dumping 
margin.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, export price 
(EP) is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or 
agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or 
exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for export to the United States. In accordance 
with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, constructed export price (CEP) 
is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed 
to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of 
importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such 
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 Tariff Act. For purposes of this review, TK Corporation has 
classified its sale(s) as EP sales. See November 20, 2001 sections B/C 
response, at page 106. TK Corporation identified one channel of 
distribution (direct sales to distributors) for its U.S. sales during 
the POR. See November 9, 2001 section A response at page 9. Based on TK 
Corporation's description of its U.S. sales process, that it sells the 
merchandise directly to unaffiliated distributors in the U.S. market, 
and did not sell in the United States through an affiliated U.S. 
importer, we preliminarily determine that TK Corporation's U.S. sales 
were EP sales. We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Tariff Act. We based EP on packed prices for export to distributors 
in the U.S. market. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, 
international freight, marine insurance, and domestic brokerage.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act, to 
determine whether there was 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 is 
greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales), we compared TK Corporation's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. Because TK Corporation's aggregate volume of home market 
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 home market was viable. We therefore based NV on 
home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual 
commercial quantities and in the normal course of trade.
    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.
    We made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses 
(consisting of inland freight) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) 
of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we made a circumstance-of-sale 
adjustment for imputed credit. We also deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6) 
of the Tariff Act. Because TK Corporation failed to include packing 
overhead in its packing calculation, we made an addition to its packing 
costs to account for overhead using the overhead ratio TK Corporation 
used in its computation of variable cost of manufacturing. See TK 
Corporation's February 6, 2002 submission at 19.

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 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 there is one LOT for all EP 
sales and 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.

[[Page 46955]]

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 
the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the 
Tariff Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period February 1, 2001, through July 
31, 2001, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Manufacturer / Exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TK Corporation.......................................               0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). 
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. 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). The Department will 
issue the final results of this new shipper 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.

Assessment

    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 new shipper review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise 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 rates for the 
reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of 
the new shipper review (except that no deposit will be required if the 
rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (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 most recent period 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any 
previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will 
be 21.2 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation (58 FR 11029) (February 23, 1993).
    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)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: July 10, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-18041 Filed 7-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S