[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61069-61071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24478]


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

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.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged 
stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India (A-533-
809) manufactured by Metal Forgings Private Limited/Metal Rings and 
Bearing Races Limited (Metal Forgings). The period of review (POR) 
covers the period January 1, 2001 through July 31, 2001. We 
preliminarily determine that Metal Forgings made no sales of stainless 
steel flanges below the normal value (NV).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 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 NW., Washington DC 20230, telephone 
(202) 482-5222, (202 482-4475, or (202 482-0649, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 Agreement Act (URAA), and 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 November 
29, 2001, in response to a timely request by Metal Forgings, the 
Department published the notice of initiation of this new shipper 
review of Metal Forgings covering the period January 1, 2001 through 
July 31, 2001 (66 FR 59568). A noted in the initiation notice, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.214(b), Metal Forgings certified in its August 31, 2001 
submission that it did not export subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period of the investigation (POI) (July 1, 1992 
through December 31, 1992), and that it was not affiliated with any 
exporter or producer of the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POI. Metal Forgings submitted documentation establishing the 
date on which it first shipped this 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.
    The POR has been defined so as to capture the dates of sale, 
shipment, and entry. On June 6, 2002, we extended the time limit for 
the preliminary results of this new shipper review to September 19, 
2002 (67 FR 38932).

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 stainless steel 
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 January 1, 2001, through July 31, 2001. We defined the 
POR so as to include the dates of sale, shipment, and entry.

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) to the normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act, we calculated EPs and compared 
these prices to weighted-average normal values.

Export Price (EP)

    Metal Forgings reported making only EP sales to the United States. 
In accordance with section 772 of the Tariff Act, we calculated an EP 
for each sale. Section 772(a) of the Tariff 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. We calculated EP 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

[[Page 61070]]

unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We did not add amounts 
for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act 
because Metal Forgings failed to the demonstrate that the import duty 
and claimed rebate were directly linked to and dependent upon one 
another, and also failed to show that it made sufficient imports of the 
imported material to account for the duty drawback claimed for the 
export of the manufactured product. See Stainless Steel Round Wire From 
India; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 64 FR 
17319, 17320 (April 9, 1999), at comment 1. See also Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
Korea, 64 FR 13169, 13172 (March 17, 1999)). Concerning the 
Department's test for acceptable duty drawback adjustment claims and, 
in particular, the insufficiency of a mere reliance by the Department 
on the Indian Government's passbook rates for pre-determined import 
content, see Viraj Group v. United States 162 F. Supp.2d 656, 667-68 
(CIT, 200;--).
    We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including: foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance.

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 (the 
viability criteria being whether 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 or subject 
merchandise during the POR), 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 or 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 the home market was viable because Metal 
Forging's home market sales were greater than 5 percent of its U.S. 
sales based on aggregate volume by weight See 351.404(b) 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. Product Comparisons

    We compared Metal Forgings 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.

D. 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. The LOT in the 
comparison market is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison 
market. 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.
    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. We also noted 
that Metal Forgings sold to a similar customer base (OEMs and 
distributors) in both markets. Based upon the foregoing, we have 
determined that Metal Forgings made sales in both markets at the same 
LOT for its EP sales as for its 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.

E. Comparison Market Price

    We based comparison market prices on the packed, ex-factory prices 
to the unaffiliated purchasers in the comparison market. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing, where applicable, in accordance 
with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. Metal Forgings 
reported no home market movement expenses.
    Finally, we made an adjustment for differences between U.S. and 
home market credit expenses.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd...................  0.06 (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 
have calculated an exporter-specific assessment rate for merchandise 
subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate 
assessment

[[Page 61071]]

instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of 
publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct the 
Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rate against the 
entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the 
importer's entries during the review period.
    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.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of stainless steel 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 Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company will be the rate 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 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 Tariff Act.

    Dated: September 19, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-24478 Filed 9-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M