[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4763-4766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-2103]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-816]


Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from 
Taiwan

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group III, Office IX, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6412.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 4764]]

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise subject to this administrative review is certain 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (``SSBWPF'') whether finished 
or unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain SSBWPF are used 
to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require 
welded connections. The subject merchandise is 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; and (5) high 
pressures are contained within the system.
    Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, with the following five 
shapes the most basic: ``elbows'', ``tees'', ``reducers'', ``stub-
ends``, and ``caps.'' The edges of finished pipe 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 the review is 
dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of Testing 
and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this 
order.
    On April 12, 2001, during this administrative review, the 
Department received a scope ruling request, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.225(c), from Allegheny Bradford Corporation d/b/a Top Line Process 
Equipment Company (Top Line), for a scope ruling 
on whether the stainless steel butt-weld tube fittings it plans to 
import are covered by the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. On November 15, 2001, the 
Department issued its preliminary scope ruling. See Memorandum from 
Edward C. Yang, Director, Enforcement, Group III, Office 9, to Joseph 
A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Group III: Preliminary Scope Ruling on the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings: Allegheny Bradford Corporation 
d/b/a Top Line Process Equipment (``Preliminary Scope Ruling''), dated 
November 15, 2001, which is on file at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
in the Central Records Unit, in room B-099. We gave interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on our Preliminary Scope Ruling. Top Line and 
petitioners filed briefs on November 21, 2001. On November 26, 2001, 
Top Line and petitioners filed rebuttal briefs. On December 10, 2001, 
the Department issued its final scope ruling that Top Line's stainless 
steel butt-weld tube fittings are within the scope of the Order. See 
Memorandum from Edward C. Yang, Director, Enforcement, Group III, 
Office 9, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, Group III: Final Scope Ruling on the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings: Allegheny Bradford 
Corporation d/b/a Top Line Process Equipment, dated December 10, 2001, 
which is also on file at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the 
Central Records Unit, in room B-099.

Amendment of the Final Results

    On December 17, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') issued its final results for stainless steel butt-weld 
pipe fittings from Taiwan for the June 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001, 
period of review. See Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in 
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From France: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
From Taiwan (``Final Results''), 67 FR 78417 (December 24, 2002).
    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec. :351.224(c), on December 20, 
2002, the petitioners in this administrative review requested that the 
Department extend the deadline to file ministerial errors regarding the 
Final Results from December 20, 2002 to December 27, 2002. On December 
20, 2002, the Department extended the deadline to file any ministerial 
error allegations on the Final Results from December 20, 2002 to 
December 27, 2002. Subsequently, on December 27, 2002, the petitioners 
timely filed an allegation pursuant to 19 CFR Sec. 351.224(c) that the 
Department made six ministerial errors in the Final Results. Ta Chen 
Stainless Steel Pipe Co., (``Ta Chen''), the only respondent covered by 
the review, did not submit any ministerial error allegations or 
rebuttal comments in reply to petitioners' ministerial error 
allegations.

Allegation 1: Improper Revision to General and Administrative Expense 
(``G&A'') Ratio

    The petitioners state that in the final results the Department 
erred in the method of applying the revised general and administrative 
expenses (``G&A'') to the total cost of manufacture when adding certain 
bonus payments to the reported G&A. According to the petitioners, the 
Department erroneously applied the revised G&A ratio to the reported 
G&A, instead of applying the revised G&A to the reported total cost of 
manufacture. The petitioners note that the same error of not applying 
the revised G&A to the total cost of manufacture was also made in the 
Margin Calculation Program.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have 
revised both the Model Match and Margin Calculation programs to apply 
the revised G&A correctly. See Analysis Memo.

Allegation 2: Improper Use of Fiscal Year for U.S. Indirect Selling 
Expense Calculation

    The petitioners argue that in the final results the Department 
erroneously did not rely on 2001 financial statements of Ta Chen 
International (``TCI'') for the calculation of the U.S. indirect 
selling expense. The petitioners further argue that the Department has 
erred in its decision by finding that TCI had not been given the 
opportunity to adjust its 2001 financial data because record evidence 
shows that the relevant adjusted information was in fact on the record. 
Thus, the petitioners state that the Department should revise its final 
results by using TCI's adjusted 2001 indirect selling expense 
percentage of the gross unit price.
    Department's Position: With regard to this allegation, we disagree 
that a change to the calculation would represent a ministerial error 
correction. At the outset, we note that petitioners are correct that 
this information is on the record. However, we note that reliance on 
that erroneous observation is only one of the two bases of our decision 
in the final results. The second basis of the Department's decision was 
that TCI's year 2000 data overlaps a longer portion of the POR than the 
year 2001 data. This fact is unchallenged by the petitioners. 
Therefore, petitioners' request that the Department overturn its 
decision to use the year 2000 TCI data is not ministerial in nature, 
but rather involves a methodological change. A ministerial error is 
defined under 19 CFR 351.224(f) as ``an error in addition, subtraction, 
or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate 
copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of 
unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.'' 
Accordingly, we have not made the requested change.

[[Page 4765]]

Allegation 3: Improper Use of Short-term Borrowing Rate for U.S. Credit 
Expense Calculation

    The petitioners argue that in the final results, the Department 
incorrectly based the U.S. credit expenses for certain ``indent'' sales 
on Ta Chen Taiwan's short-term borrowing rate, instead of its U.S. 
subsidiary TCI's short-term borrowing rate. The petitioners conclude 
the Department should revise U.S. credit expenses based TCI's short-
term interest rate as opposed to that of Ta Chen.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that the 
Department inadvertently used Ta Chen's short-term borrowing rate for 
calculation of imputed credit expense for the U.S. sales at issue, 
instead of correctly using TCI's short-term borrowing rate. We have 
corrected this error. See Analysis Memo.

Allegation 4: Improper Application of Average Margin to Unreported 
Sales

    Petitioners note that in the preliminary results, the Department 
decided to impose partial facts available on two sets of Ta Chen's U.S. 
sales and assigned Ta Chen's average positive margin to those sales. 
The petitioners further note that in the final results, the Department 
changed from using the average positive margin to the average margin on 
the basis that use of the average positive margin was implicitly an 
unintended adverse margin. However, petitioners argue that using the 
average margin produces an incorrect result. See, Memorandum For The 
File from Lilit Astvatsatrian through James Doyle, dated January 20, 
2003, for identification of the precise nature of the alleged incorrect 
result. Moreover, petitioners assert that the average positive margin 
is not adverse as the highest dumping margin calculated would have been 
the proper adverse facts available margin. As a result of these 
considerations, petitioners conclude that the Department should apply 
the average positive margin to the two sets of Ta Chen's U.S. sales at 
issue.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners' assertion that 
the use of the average margin represents a ministerial error and 
accordingly will not adjust the final results. The final results 
computer program correctly calculated and applied the average margin to 
these sales, which was precisely the Department's intent as expressed 
in the final results. While the petitioners may disagree with the use 
of the calculated average margin, such disagreement regarding the 
figure does not represent identification of a ministerial error as 
described in 19 CFR 351.224(f).

Allegation 5: Omission of Negative Data Test in the Model Match Program

    The petitioners maintain that in its Margin Calculation Program, 
the Department conducted a ``negative data test'' to find and remove a 
negative reported price or quantity from the calculation. Petitioners 
also note that the Department did not conduct a similar negative data 
test in the Model Match Program. Petitioners conclude that conducting 
the test in one program and not the other results in the incorrect use 
of different databases between the two programs.
    Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners. As an initial 
matter, we note that petitioners did not comment on this standard 
Department calculation practice after the preliminary results, which 
was the correct time to raise this methodological consideration. 
Finally, as this is a methodological issue, it cannot be understood to 
be a ministerial error.

Allegation 6: Improper Admission of CEP Offset

    Petitioners allege that the Department, in granting Ta Chen a CEP 
offset, failed: (1) to analyze the proper levels of trade for 
determining whether a CEP offset should be granted, and (2) to confirm 
the type and extent of the selling expenses offered by Ta Chen to the 
U.S. and home markets in the submitted record. Petitioners argue that 
after a proper analysis, the Department should find that the U.S. level 
of trade is at a higher level (or at a minimum, an equal level) of 
trade than home market sales and deny Ta Chen's request for a CEP 
offset and then correct the final results accordingly.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners. Rather 
than requesting the Department to correct an unintentional error such 
as these listed at 19 CFR 351.224 (f), the petitioners are requesting 
the Department to review its analysis and subsequently reverse its 
decision at the final results. Accordingly, we cannot agree this 
represents a ministerial error.
    We are amending the Final Results to reflect the correction of the 
above-cited two ministerial errors. All changes made to the model match 
and margin program can be found in the analysis memorandum. See 
Memorandum to the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst to James 
C. Doyle, Program Manager, Final Analysis for Ta Chen Stainless Steel 
Pipe Co. for the Amended Final Results of the Administrative Review of 
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan for the period June 
1, 2000 through May 31, 2001, dated January 20, 2003.
    The revised weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Amended Final Weighted
           Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                Final Weighted-Average         [chyph]Average Margin
                                                         [chyph]Margin (percent)              (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Chen.............................................                          2.38                          2.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated importer-specific assessment 
rates. With respect to the constructed export price sales, we divided 
the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered 
value of those reviewed sales for each importer. We will direct Customs 
to assess any resulting non-de minimis percentage margins against the 
entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that 
importer's entries during the review period. We will issue appropriate 
assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days 
of publication of these amended final results of review.
    We will also direct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits of 
estimated antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance 
with the procedures discussed in the Final Results and at the rates 
amended by this determination. The amended deposit requirements are 
effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication of this notice and shall remain until publication of the 
final results of the next administrative review.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and CFR 
351.210(c).


[[Page 4766]]


    Dated: January 23, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-2103 Filed 1-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S