[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19779-19781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9933]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-881


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of 
China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 2003.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of critical circumstances 
in the less than fair value investigation of certain malleable iron 
pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce has preliminarily determined that 
critical circumstances exist for imports of certain malleable iron pipe 
fittings from the People's Republic of China.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak, Ann Barnett-Dahl or 
Helen Kramer at (202) 482-6375, (202) 482-3833, or (202) 482-0405, 
respectively; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group 
III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 the 
regulations codified at 19 C.F.R. Section 351 (2002).

Background

    On November 19, 2002, the Department initiated an investigation to 
determine whether imports of malleable iron pipe fittings (MPF) from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, 
sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (LTFV). See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 70579 
(November 25, 2002) (Initiation Notice). On December 16, 2002, the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) published its preliminary 
determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured or threatened with material 
injury by reason of imports of MPF from the PRC. See Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, International Trade 
Commission, Investigation No. 731-TA-1021 (Preliminary), USITC 
Publication 3568 (ITC Preliminary Determination). On February 28, 2003, 
the petitioners in this investigation, Ward Manufacturing, Inc. and 
Anvil International, Inc. (collectively, petitioners) alleged that 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical 
circumstances exist with respect to the antidumping investigation of 
MPF from the PRC.
    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.206(c)(2)(i), because the 
petitioners submitted their critical circumstances allegations 20 days 
or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the 
Department must issue the preliminary critical circumstances finding 
not later than the date of the preliminary determination. In Policy 
Bulletin 98/4, issued on October 8, 1998, the Department stated that it 
may issue a preliminary critical circumstances determination prior to 
the date of the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value, assuming sufficient evidence of critical circumstances is 
available (see Policy Bulletin 98/4: Timing of Issuance of Critical 
Circumstances Determinations (63 FR 55364)). In accordance with this 
policy, at this time we are issuing the preliminary critical 
circumstances decision in the investigation of MPF from the PRC for the 
reasons discussed below and in the concurrent decision memorandum. See 
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration from Richard

[[Page 19780]]

Weible, Director, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Malleable Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China Preliminary 
Affirmative and Negative Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 
dated April 14, 2003 (Critical Circumstances Memorandum), on file in 
Import Administration's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099, of the 
Department of Commerce building.

Critical Circumstances

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will 
determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping 
and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or 
elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or 
for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew, or should have 
known, that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less 
than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by 
reason of such sales, and, (B) there have been massive imports of the 
subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Section 
351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that, in 
determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been 
``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) the volume and 
value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as normally being the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. Section 
351.206(i) further provides that if the Department finds that 
importers, exporters, or producers, had reason to believe, at some time 
prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, 
the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.
    In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been 
satisfied, we considered: (i) the evidence presented by the petitioners 
in their February 28, 2003 letter; (ii) exporter-specific shipment data 
requested by the Department on March 7, 2003; and (iii) U.S. ITC 
DataWeb import statistics.

History of Dumping

    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 
733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence 
of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the 
United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. See Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). With 
regard to existing antidumping orders, the petitioners note that the 
European Community (EC) currently imposes a 49.4 percent duty on MPF 
from the PRC. Therefore, pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, the Department finds a history of injurious dumping of MPF from 
the PRC. Additionally, as the Department finds a history of injurious 
dumping of MPF from the PRC, and under section 733(e)(1) of the Act a 
history of injurious dumping is sufficient basis to determine that 
critical circumstances exist, we have not addressed the issue of 
importer knowledge.

Massive Imports

    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 
Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing 
of the petition (i.e., the ``base period'') to a comparable period of 
at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the 
``comparison period''). However, as stated in section 351.206(i) of the 
Department's regulations, ``if the Secretary finds that importers, or 
exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to 
the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely, then the 
Secretary may consider a time period of not less than three months from 
that earlier time.'' Imports normally will be considered massive when 
imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or 
more compared to imports during the base period. See Section 
351.206(h)(2).
    For the reasons set forth in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, 
we find no reason to believe that importers, exporters, or producers 
had reason to believe a proceeding was likely, prior to the filing of 
the petition. The Department requested from the respondents in this 
investigation monthly shipment data for October 2000 through April 
2003, and obtained data through February 2003. In addition, we obtained 
U.S. import data for subject merchandise for October 2000 through 
January 2003 from the U.S. ITC DataWeb. Accordingly, because the 
Department has four months of data, from the date of the filing of the 
petition, available for respondents, we determined that July 2002 
through October 2002 should serve as the ``base period,'' while 
November 2002 through February 2003 should serve as the ``comparison 
period,'' in determining whether or not imports have been massive over 
a relatively short period for respondents.
    According to 19 C.F.R. 351.206(i), the comparison period normally 
should be at least three months; however, if we determine that 
importers, exporters or producers had reason to believe that a 
proceeding was likely, then the Department may consider a longer 
period. In this case, we have chosen a period of four months as the 
period for comparison in preliminarily determining whether imports of 
the subject merchandise have been massive because respondents provided 
data inclusive of February 2003, and because choosing a four-month 
period in general properly reflects the ``relatively short period'' 
commanded by the statute for determining whether imports have been 
massive. See Section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We have determined that November 2002 is the month in which 
importers, exporters or producers knew or should have known an 
antidumping duty investigation was likely, because the petition was 
filed on nearly the last day of October 2002. Therefore, in applying 
the four-month period, we used a comparison period of November 2002 to 
February 2003, and a base period of July 2002 to October 2002. The 
Department requested from the respondents in this investigation monthly 
shipment data for October 2000 through April 2003. To date, the 
Department has received from respondents data inclusive of February 
2003. In addition, we obtained U.S. import data for subject merchandise 
for October 2000 through January 2003 from the U.S. ITC DataWeb.
    Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.206(h)(2), we found imports of MPF from 
the PRC increased by more than 15 percent in the comparison period; 
accordingly, we find that imports have been massive. With regard to the 
issue of massive imports, in accordance with our current practice (see 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5561 
(February 4, 2000)), we first considered the shipment data

[[Page 19781]]

reported by the mandatory and non-selected respondents for the base and 
comparison periods (July 2002 through October 2002 and November 2002 to 
February 2003, respectively). We found massive imports for one of the 
mandatory respondents, Jinan Meide Casting Co. (JMC), and one of the 
non-selected respondents, SCE Co., Ltd. (SCE), based on an increase in 
imports exceeding the required 15 percent, but no massive imports for 
the other mandatory respondents, Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., 
Ltd. (Pannext), and Beijing Sai Lin Ke (SLK), and the other non-
selected respondents Myland Industrial Co., Ltd. (Myland) and Chengde 
Malleable Iron General Factory (Chengde). In addition, we find that 
imports of subject merchandise were massive in the three-month 
comparison period for the PRC-wide entity for which data is available. 
See Critical Circumstances Memorandum for more detailed information.

Conclusion

    Given the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail 
in the Critical Circumstances Memorandum, we preliminarily determine 
that critical circumstances exist for imports of MPF from the PRC exist 
for JMC and SCE and for the PRC-wide entity, but not for Pannext, SLK, 
Myland or Chengde.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, if the Department 
issues an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the 
investigation with respect to JMC, SCE, or the PRC-wide entity, the 
Department, at that time, will direct Customs to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of MPF from the PRC from these exporters that are entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior 
to the date of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary 
determination of sales at LTFV. Customs shall require a cash deposit or 
posting of a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins, 
if any, reflected in the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV 
published in the Federal Register. Any suspension of liquidation issued 
after our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV will remain in 
effect until further notice.

Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will make final determinations concerning critical circumstances 
for the PRC when we make our final dumping determinations in this 
investigation, which will be 75 days (unless extended) after issuance 
of the preliminary LTFV determinations.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
Commission of our determinations.
    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in 
accordance with section 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 14, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-9933 Filed 4-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S