[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33911-33920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-14343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-881]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak at (202) 482-6375, Ann 
Barnett-Dahl at (202) 482-3833, or Helen Kramer at (202) 482-0405; 
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:

Preliminary Determination:

    We preliminarily determine that malleable iron pipe fittings (MPF) 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being sold, or are likely 
to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as 
provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins of sales at 
LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on November 19, 2002, based on a 
petition filed by Ward Manufacturing and Anvil International 
(collectively, petitioners). See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 
Duty Investigation: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 70579-81 (November 25, 2002) 
(Initiation Notice). In a letter dated January 2, 2003, the Department 
set aside a period for all interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. We received a request from Beijing Sai Lin Ke 
Hardware Co., Ltd (SLK) and LDR Industries, Inc. (LDR) (collectively 
SLK/LDR), for a scope exclusion. Petitioners had no objection to this 
request. See Memo to the File from Anya Naschak, dated April 1, 2003. 
No other comments were received. Since the initiation of the 
investigation, the following events have occurred.
    On December 11, 2002, the Department requested information from the 
U.S. Embassy in the PRC to identify producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise and received a response in December 2002. On December 23, 
2002,

[[Page 33912]]

the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its 
affirmative 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 December 16, 2002, the Department issued a letter requesting 
information on the quantity and value of shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation 
(POI) to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade & Economic Cooperation 
with a letter requesting that it forward the questionnaire to all 
Chinese exporters of MPF who had shipments during the POI. We also sent 
courtesy copies of the quantity and value questionnaire to the 
following possible producers/exporters of subject merchandise 
identified in the petition and on the basis of U.S. Bureau of Customs 
and Border Protection (BCBP) information: Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd. 
(JMC), SLK, Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd. (LPFC), Simmons 
International, Ltd. (Simmons), Shantou ZhongXing Industry Co., Ltd. 
(formerly Shantou Zhongxing Economic & Trading Co., Ltd.) (Shantou), 
Shanghai Dongsheng Electric Import & Export Co., Ltd. (SDE), 
Brantingham Manufacturing (Brantingham), Shandong Maxwill Import and 
Export (Shandong), Chen Tai International Trading Co., Ltd. (CTIT), and 
Unique Industries (UI). On December 24, 2002, Chengde Malleable Iron 
General Factory (Chengde) requested to be considered a voluntary 
respondent in this investigation.
    On December 27 and 30, 2002, the following Chinese producers/
exporters of MPF submitted information on the quantity and value of 
their shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POI: JMC, SLK, Pannext Fittings Corporation (PFC) and LPFC 
(collectively, Pannext), and Simmons. On January 3, 2003, Chengde also 
submitted quantity and value information.
    On January 8, 2003, we selected JMC, SLK, and Pannext as the 
mandatory respondents (see ``Selection of Respondents'' below). The 
Department issued its non-market economy (NME) antidumping 
questionnaire to JMC, SLK, and Pannext. In NME cases, Section A of the 
questionnaire requests general information concerning a company's 
corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under 
investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that 
merchandise in all of its markets. Section C requests a complete 
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the factors of 
production of the merchandise sold in or to the United States. Section 
E requests information on further manufacturing.
    On January 27 and 29, 2003, Myland Industrial Co., Ltd. (Myland), 
and SCE Co., Ltd. (SCE), respectively requested to be considered 
voluntary respondents in this investigation. We received complete 
Section A responses from JMC, SLK, and Pannext (collectively, 
respondents) on January 30, 2003. We received a complete Section A 
response from Chengde on February 7, 2003, and from SCE on February 21, 
2003. The Department received comments from petitioners on respondents' 
Section A questionnaire responses on February 7, 2003. On February 13, 
2003, the Department issued supplemental Section A questionnaires to 
JMC, SLK, and Pannext. We received complete supplemental responses from 
JMC on February 24, 2003, from SLK on February 25, 2003, and from 
Pannext on March 3, 2003.
    SCE and Chengde submitted their complete Sections C and D responses 
on February 21 and 24, 2003, respectively. JMC submitted its complete 
Sections C and D responses on February 24, 2003. Pannext submitted a 
complete Section C response on February 26, 2003, and a complete 
Section D response on March 3, 2003. SLK submitted its complete 
Sections C and D responses on March 4, 2003. Petitioners filed comments 
on JMC's submissions on March 5, 2003.
    On March 18 and 19, 2003, the Department sent out supplemental 
Section C and D questionnaires to SLK, JMC, and Pannext. JMC and SLK 
submitted their complete supplemental responses on April 2, 2003. 
Pannext submitted its complete supplemental response on April 11, 2003. 
SLK submitted an additional supplemental response on April 14, 2003. 
Petitioners submitted comments on JMC's submissions on April 9, 2003. 
The Department sent an additional supplemental questionnaire to Pannext 
on April 23, 2003, and to JMC on April 25, 2003. On April 28, 2003, the 
Department received Pannext's complete additional supplemental 
response. On May 2, 2003, the Department received JMC's complete 
additional supplemental response. On May 7, 2003, the Department sent a 
letter to Pannext, JMC, and SLK, requesting that they revise certain of 
their data and resubmit these data electronically. The Department 
received a response on May 9, 2003, and May 12, 2003 from JMC, SLK, and 
Pannext.
    On February 20, 2003, Myland filed its Section A response in a 
format that was inconsistent with the Department's regulation. On March 
3, 2003, the Department returned Myland's Section A questionnaire 
response, and explained the filing requirements in detail. The 
Department granted Myland the opportunity to re-file its response in 
the proper format and extended Myland's Section A filing deadline to 
March 7, 2003. Myland submitted a revised Section A response on March 
19, 2003. In addition, Myland submitted its Section C response on March 
24, 2003, and its Section D response on March 26, 2003, which were 
originally due on February 28, 2003. The Department rejected Myland's 
Sections A, C, and D responses in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.302(d). 
Additionally, the Department informed Myland on April 14, 2003 that 
because Myland had not complied with the requests for information by 
the Department in a timely manner, they could not be considered a 
voluntary respondent. See 19 C.F.R. 351.204(d)(2); see also Letter from 
Abdelali Elouaradia to Myland Industrial Co., Ltd., dated April 14, 
2003 (April 14th Letter). On April 18, 2003, Myland submitted a letter 
requesting to be allowed to resubmit its questionnaire responses. On 
May 6, 2003, the Department informed Myland that it would be unable to 
consider Myland's information for the reasons expressed in its April 
14th Letter.
    On January 29, 2003, the Department requested publicly available 
information for valuing the factors of production and comments on 
surrogate country selection. On February 28, 2003, Pannext submitted 
information concerning surrogate value of zinc to be used for valuing 
the factors of production. On March 26, 2003, SLK submitted information 
concerning the surrogate values of steel scrap and electricity for use 
in valuing the factors of production. On May 5, 2003, petitioners 
submitted information concerning surrogate values of steel scrap and 
financial ratios for use in valuing the factors of production.
    On February 28, 2003, petitioners' submission alleged that there is 
a reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the investigation of MPF from the PRC. The Department 
preliminarily determined that critical circumstances exist for JMC and 
SCE and for the PRC-wide entity, but not for Pannext, SLK, Myland, or 
Chengde. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron

[[Page 33913]]

Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 19779 (April 
22, 2003)
    On March 21, 2003, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the 
Department postponed the preliminary determination of this 
investigation until May 28, 2003. See Notice of Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain 
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
13896 (March 21, 2003).

Postponement of the Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 C.F.R. 
351.210(e)(2), require that requests by respondents for postponement of 
a final determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of 
the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months.
    On May 2, 2003, JMC requested that, in the event of an affirmative 
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department 
postpone its final determination until 135 days after the publication 
of the preliminary determination. Pannext and SLK submitted requests 
for a postponement of the Department's final determination until 135 
days after the publication of the preliminary determination on May 7, 
2003, and May 6, 2003, respectively. JMC also included a request to 
extend the provisional measures to not more than six months after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. See JMC's letter to the 
Department, dated May 2, 2003. Accordingly, because we have made an 
affirmative preliminary determination, the requesting parties account 
for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and 
no compelling reasons exist to deny the request, we have postponed the 
final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination, and are extending the 
provisional measures accordingly, in accordance with section 735(a)(2) 
of the Act and section 351.210(e) of the Department's Regulations.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2002, through September 30, 2002. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (i.e., October 2003). See 19 C.F.R. 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved 
fittings, from the People's Republic of China. The merchandise is 
classified under item numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 
7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS).
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are metal compression 
couplings, which is imported under HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal 
compression coupling consists of a coupling body, two gaskets, and two 
compression nuts. These products range in diameter from [frac1s2] inch 
to 2 inches and are carried only in galvanized finish. HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and BCBP purposes. The written 
description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 
Department discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/
producers, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate 
either: (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that 
is statistically valid based on the information available at the time 
of selection; or (2) exporters and producers accounting for the largest 
volume of the subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. 
After consideration of the complexities expected to arise in this 
proceeding and the resources available to the Department, we determined 
that it was not practicable to examine the over 100 potential producers 
and/or exporters from the PRC. Instead, we found that, given our 
resources, we would be able to investigate three Chinese producers/
exporters. The three selected mandatory respondents, JMC, SLK, and 
Pannext, were selected because they were the three largest exporters 
and because they accounted for over 60 percent of exports of the 
subject merchandise from the PRC during the POI, as determined by BCBP 
data and provided by the producers/exporters at the time we made our 
respondent selection. See Memorandum from Richard Weible to Joseph A. 
Spetrini Re: Selection of Respondents, January 8, 2003.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past 
antidumping investigations. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel 
Pipe From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 36570, 36571 (May 24, 
2002); and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Structural Steel 
Beams From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 67197, 67198-99 
(December 28, 2001); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value Certain: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 20090, 20091 (April 24, 2002). A 
designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the 
Department (see Section 771(18)(C) of the Act). The respondents in this 
investigation have not requested a revocation of the PRC's NME status. 
We have, therefore, preliminarily determined to continue treating the 
PRC as an NME country.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base the normal value (NV) on the 
NME producer's factors of production (FOP). Section 773(c)(4) provides 
that when valuing FOP, the Department shall utilize FOP from a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed 
under the ``Normal Value'' section, below.
    Furthermore, no interested party has requested that the MPF 
industry in the PRC be treated as a market-oriented industry and no 
information has been provided that would lead to such a determination. 
Therefore, we have not treated the MPF industry in the PRC as a market-
oriented industry in this investigation.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's

[[Page 33914]]

policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 
in an NME country this single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate 
that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate 
rate. The five companies that have submitted Section A responses have 
provided the requested company-specific separate rates information and 
have stated that, for each company, there is no element of government 
ownership or control. All five companies have requested a separate 
company-specific rate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted above, Myland is not eligible for a separate rate 
because the Department has rejected its Section A response in 
accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.302(d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JMC reported that it is a Sino-U.S. equity joint venture between 
Jinan Malleable Iron Corporation and South Hudson Inc., established 
under Chinese law as a limited liability corporation. JMC is privately 
owned by individual shareholders and controlled by a board of 
directors. JMC states that it does not have any relationship with the 
central, provincial, or local governments in the PRC. JMC further 
states that there are no government controls on the export activities 
of JMC.
    SLK reported that it is wholly-owned by LDR, a U.S. company, and 
controlled by its managers and owners. SLK stated that they have no 
relationship with any other producers or exporters of subject 
merchandise, and that there are no government controls on the export 
activities of SLK. SLK further states that they it is not owned or 
controlled by a provincial or local government. Because SLK is wholly 
foreign-owned, a separate rate analysis is not necessary.
    Pannext reported that it is a subsidiary of Pantex Computer Inc. 
(PCI), a company incorporated in Texas, United States and is controlled 
by its two-person board of directors, one of whom is the owner of PCI, 
and the other is the general manager of Pannext. Pannext stated that 
all exports of the subject merchandise were produced by Pannext. 
Pannext claimed that Pannext and its affiliates have no corporate 
relationship with any level of the PRC government. Because Pannext is 
wholly foreign-owned, a separate rate analysis is not necessary.
    Chengde reported that it is an employee-owned enterprise. Chengde 
further states that Chengde is under the direct control of its general 
manager who makes all business decisions, and that Chengde is 
independent of any national, provincial, or local government, including 
ministries or offices of those governments with respect to exports of 
the subject merchandise to the United States.
    SCE reported that SCE operates in a market economy and operates 
beyond the jurisdiction of the NME government of the PRC. SCE states 
that it has no relationship with national, provincial and local 
governments, and that there are no controls on the export activities of 
SCE.
    Based on these claims, we considered whether each respondent is 
eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate rate test to 
determine whether the exporters are independent from government control 
is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type controls, 
e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly 
if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, 
rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-
making process at the individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and 
Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising out of the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic 
of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) 
(Silicon Carbide). Under the separate rates criteria, the Department 
assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate 
the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over 
export activities. See id.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
JMC, SLK, Pannext, SCE, and Chengde have placed on the record a number 
of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the 
``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China'' and the 
``Company Law of the People's Republic of China.'' In addition, in 
previous cases, the Department has analyzed the ``Company Law of the 
People's Republic of China'' and found that it establishes an absence 
of de jure control. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer 
Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 29571, 
29573 (June 5, 1995). We have no information in this proceeding that 
would cause us to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on 
the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of de jure 
control for JMC, SLK, Pannext, SCE, and Chengde.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. As stated in previous cases, there is some 
evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not 
been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions 
in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide 59 FR at 22587. Therefore, the 
Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is 
critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a 
degree of governmental control that would preclude the Department from 
assigning separate rates.
    All respondents asserted the following: (1) they establish their 
own export prices; (2) they negotiate contracts without guidance from 
any governmental entities or organizations; (3) they make their own 
personnel decisions; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their export 
sales, using

[[Page 33915]]

profits according to their business needs. Additionally, none of the 
respondents' questionnaire responses suggest pricing is coordinated 
among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of the respondents' 
questionnaire responses reveals no other information indicating 
government control. Based on the information provided, we preliminary 
determine that there is an absence of de facto governmental control of 
the respondents' export functions. Consequently, we preliminarily 
determine that JMC, SLK, Pannext, Chengde, and SCE have met the 
criteria for the application of a separate rate.

The People's Republic of China-Wide Rate

    All exporters were given the opportunity to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received timely 
Section A responses from JMC, SLK, Pannext, Chengde, and SCE.\2\ Our 
review of U.S. import statistics from the PRC, however, reveals that 
JMC, SLK, Pannext, Chengde, and SCE did not account for all imports of 
subject merchandise into the United States from the PRC, even after 
adjusting for the merchandise of Chinese origin Myland said it had 
imported into the United States. For this reason, we preliminarily 
determine that some PRC exporters of MPF failed to respond to our 
questionnaire. Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate 
the PRC-wide rate to all other exporters in the PRC based on our 
presumption that those respondents who failed to demonstrate 
entitlement to a separate rate constitute a single enterprise under 
common control by the Chinese government. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from 
the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000) 
(Synthetic Indigo). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject 
merchandise except for entries from JMC, SLK, Pannext, Chengde, and 
SCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As previously stated, for the preliminary determination we 
have found that Myland did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. 
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline 
to consider submitted information if that information is necessary to 
the determination but does not meet all of the requirements established 
by the Department provided that all of the following requirements are 
met: (1) the information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) 
the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so 
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the 
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act permits the Department to use facts 
available when a party does not provide the Department with information 
by the established deadline or in the form and manner requested by the 
Department. 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 that party as 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., 2d Session at 870 
(1994). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of 
the respondent is not required before the Department may make an 
adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).

PRC-Wide Rate

    In the case of the single PRC enterprise, as explained above, some 
exporters of the single enterprise failed to respond to the 
Department's request for information. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the 
Act, in reaching our preliminary determination, we have used total 
adverse facts available for the PRC-wide rate because certain entities 
did not respond. Also, because some exporters of the single enterprise 
failed to respond to the Department's requests for information, the 
Department has found that the single enterprise failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act. However, section 776(c) of the Act provides 
that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than 
on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, 
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. 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 and 19 C.F.R. 351.308(d). ``Corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information used. See 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).
    For our preliminary determination, as adverse facts available, we 
have used as the PRC-wide rate the recalculated dumping margin from the 
petition (see below). In the petition, the petitioners based export 
price (EP) on Chinese price quotes publicly available in the United 
States. See http://www.smithcooper.com/products.htm[numsign]Malleable. 
For the NV calculation, the petitioners based the factors of 
production, as defined by section 773(c)(3) of the Act (raw materials, 
labor, energy, and representative capital costs), on the quantities of 
inputs used by the petitioners.
    With regard to the EP calculation in the petition, the information 
relied upon in this case was based on the publicly available Chinese 
price quotes. Therefore, we find that the U.S. price from the petition 
margin is sufficiently corroborated. To corroborate the petitioners' NV 
calculations, we

[[Page 33916]]

compared the petitioners' factor consumption data to that data on the 
record of this investigation. As discussed in a separate memorandum to 
the file, we found that the factors consumption data in the petition 
were reasonable and of probative value. See Memorandum to the File 
Regarding Total Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum for the PRC-
Wide Rate, dated May 28, 2003. The values for the factors of production 
in the petition were based on publicly available information for 
comparable inputs. Therefore, we find that these Indian surrogate 
values are sufficiently corroborated.
    As a result of this calculation, the PRC-wide rate, for the 
preliminary determination, is 146.41 percent. Because this is a 
preliminary margin, the Department will consider all margins on the 
record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of 
determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate factor values are discussed under the NV section below.
    The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development. See Memorandum from Jeffrey May to Abdelali 
Elouaradia: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Certain Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, dated January 13, 
2003. Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate based on the 
availability and reliability of data from these countries. For PRC 
cases, the primary surrogate has often been India if it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have 
found that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
    We used India as the primary surrogate country and, accordingly, we 
have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producers' 
factors of production, when available and appropriate. See Surrogate 
Country Selection Memorandum to The File from Anya Naschak, Case 
Analyst, dated May 28, 2003, (Surrogate Country Memorandum). We have 
obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever 
possible. See Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Determination to The File from Case Analysts, dated May 28, 
2003 (Factor Valuation Memorandum).
    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final determination in an antidumping 
investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value factors of production within 40 days after the 
date of publication of this preliminary determination.

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether sales of MPF to the United States by JMC, SLK, 
and Pannext were made at less than fair value, we compared EP or 
constructed export price (CEP), as appropriate, and 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 weighted-average EPs or CEPs.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for respondent JMC we 
used EP because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and 
because CEP was not otherwise indicated. As explained below, for 
respondents SLK and Pannext, we used CEP. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs 
or CEPs to the NVs.
    We calculated EP based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. For JMC we made deductions, where appropriate, for 
foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, 
marine insurance, and other sales specific adjustments. See Proprietary 
Memorandum from Ann Barnett-Dahl to Abdelali Elouaradia: Preliminary 
Determination Analysis Memorandum for Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd., 
dated May 28, 2003 (JMC Analysis Memo). Because marine insurance was 
provided by an NME company, we based it on a surrogate rate from a 
publicly available price list for India. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.
    SLK classified all of its sales of the subject merchandise in the 
United States as CEP sales in its questionnaire response. SLK made all 
of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to the first unaffiliated 
U.S. customer prior to importation by LDR, its U.S. affiliated 
reseller. We examined the facts surrounding the U.S. sales process.
    LDR handled the sales of the subject merchandise in the United 
States during the POI. LDR conducted all sales negotiations without 
SLK's participation, received purchase orders from U.S. customers and 
sent order confirmations to these customers. LDR also issued all 
invoices and received payment from its U.S. customers. See Section A 
Questionnaire Response (January 29, 2003), and Section A Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response (February 25, 2003). Because LDR made all sales 
in the United States, the Department preliminarily determines that 
SLK's U.S. sales were made ``in the United States'' within the meaning 
of section 772(b) of the Act, and, thus, should be treated as CEP 
transactions.
    We calculated weighted-average CEPs for SLK's U.S. sales made in 
the United States through its U.S. affiliate. We based CEP on the 
reported gross unit prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, rebates, 
marine insurance, international freight, U.S. duties, and for foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. To calculate inland freight, we 
multiplied the reported distance from the plant to the port of exit by 
a surrogate truck freight rate from India. In accordance with section 
772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from CEP direct and indirect selling 
expenses (i.e., advertising and imputed credit expenses, and indirect 
selling expenses and inventory carrying costs) that were associated 
with LDR's economic activities occurring in the United States. See 
Proprietary Memorandum from Helen Kramer to Abdelali Elouaradia: 
Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum for Beijing Sai Lin Ke 
Hardware Co., Ltd. and LDR Industries, dated May 28, 2003 (SLK Analysis 
Memo).
    In its questionnaire response Pannext classified all of its sales 
of the subject merchandise in the United States as CEP sales. All of 
Pannext's U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to the first 
unaffiliated U.S. customer during the POI were made prior to 
importation through PFC, a U.S.-based affiliated

[[Page 33917]]

reseller. We examined the facts surrounding the U.S. sales process.
    The sale of subject merchandise by Pannext in the United States 
during the POI was handled by PFC. PFC received purchase orders from, 
and sent order confirmations to, U.S. customers. PFC also issued all 
invoices and received payment from Pannext's customers. See Section A 
Questionnaire Response (January 29, 2003), and Section A Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response (March 3, 2003).
    Because the contracts on which Pannext's U.S. sales were based were 
between PFC and its unaffiliated U.S. customers, and PFC invoiced and 
received payment from the unaffiliated U.S. customers, the Department 
preliminarily determines that Pannext's U.S. sales were made ``in the 
United States'' within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act, and, 
thus, should be treated as CEP transactions. This is consistent with AK 
Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    We calculated weighted-average CEPs for Pannext's U.S. sales made 
in the United States through its U.S. affiliate. We based CEP on the 
reported gross unit prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts, marine 
insurance, international freight, U.S. duties, and for foreign inland 
freight from the plant to the port of exportation in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Because marine insurance was provided 
by an NME company, we based it on a publicly available price list for 
India. See Factor Valuation Memorandum. To calculate inland freight, we 
multiplied the reported distance from the plant to the port of exit by 
a surrogate rail rate from India. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we deducted from CEP direct and indirect selling expenses 
(i.e., credit and indirect selling expenses) that were associated with 
Pannext's economic activities occurring in the United States. See 
Proprietary Memorandum from Anya Naschak to Abdelali Elouaradia: 
Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum for Langfang Pannext Pipe 
Fitting Co., Ltd. and Pannext Fittings Corporation, dated May 28, 2003 
(Pannext Analysis Memo).

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information 
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
    Factors of production include: (1) hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
factors of production, reported by respondents, for materials, energy, 
labor, by-products, and packing. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act.
    The statute provides that in NME cases, the Department ``shall 
determine the normal value of the subject merchandise on the basis of 
the value of the factors of production utilized in producing the 
merchandise.'' See section 773(c)(1) of the Act. However, in the 
instant investigation, JMC, Pannext, and SLK have submitted information 
on the record that they do not keep records of the inputs of recycled 
scrap used in the manufacture of subject merchandise, which would be 
necessary to determine the quantity of recycled scrap used in producing 
one kilogram of subject merchandise as a factor of production. Further, 
respondents note that they do not record in the normal course of 
business the quantities of inputs required to produce each model of 
subject merchandise. Respondents note that they have reported their 
factors of production excluding the inputs of recycled scrap. 
Respondents have explained that their production line is a closed loop 
system, where in the ordinary course of business all scrap produced is 
simultaneously reintroduced into the production process. Therefore, it 
is the respondents' position that the Department should not include in 
its calculation a factor of production for recycled scrap because the 
offset would nullify any additional input quantity.
    In an effort to determine the quantity of these inputs, the 
Department provided respondents with an opportunity to report recycled 
scrap as an input. First, the Department requested that all respondents 
adjust their reported factors of production by the control number 
(CONNUM)-specific yield loss ratios. Respondents have acted to the best 
of their ability to comply with this request. In their supplemental 
submissions, the respondents adjusted their factors of production to 
account for these yield loss ratios, and reported estimated yield loss 
ratios on a CONNUM-specific basis. However, respondents noted that they 
are only able to report estimated data, because these ratios are not 
inclusive of material lost due to spillage, slag, or evaporation in the 
melting process, and are based on a small number of tests, rather than 
on actual CONNUM-specific data.
    Second, the Department requested, at least twice, that each 
respondent separately report the quantity of recycled scrap 
reintroduced into the production process in order to account for the 
material lost in the production process. See e.g., the Department's NME 
Questionnaire, dated January 8, 2003, at D-1, D-6, JMC Supplemental C 
and D Questionnaire, dated March 19, 2003, at page 7, Pannext 
Supplemental Section C and D Questionnaire, dated March 19, 2003 at 
pages 6-7, Pannext Second Supplemental C and D Questionnaire, dated 
April 23, 2003, at page 4, SLK Supplemental Section C and D 
Questionnaire, dated March 18, 2003, at page 6, and Memorandum from Ann 
Barnett-Dahl to the File, dated May 19, 2003. Respondents explained 
that they do not keep records on reintroduced scrap, and are therefore 
unable to provide the Department with the quantity of these inputs. See 
e.g., JMC's Section D Questionnaire response, dated February 24, 2003, 
at pages 23 25, JMC's Section D Supplemental response, dated April 2, 
2003, at pages 18-19, Pannext's Section D Supplemental response, dated 
April 11, 2003, at pages 16-17, Pannext's Section D Second Supplemental 
response, dated April 28, 2003, at pages 4-5, SLK's Section D 
Supplemental response, dated April 14, 2003, at pages 5-6.
    However, it is the Department's practice to require the reporting 
of all inputs in the production process in the calculation of 
constructed value. When a party is unable to provide the Department 
with the requested information, section782(c) of the Act requires a 
party to promptly notify the Department as to why it cannot comply with 
the Department's questionnaire. Section782(c) also requires parties to 
suggest alternative forms in which they are able to comply with the 
request. See China Steel Corporation and Yieh Loong v United States, 
Court No. 01-01040, Slip Op. 03-52 at 31-32 (May 14, 2003). In this 
investigation, the Department promptly requested that each respondent 
separately report the quantities of reintroduced scrap. Respondents 
have stated they are unable to provide the Department with the 
requested information, but they have not provided the Department with 
any alternate means of accounting for the unreported recycled scrap 
inputs. In lieu of an alternative provided by respondents, the 
Department must resort to partial facts available in the calculation of 
dumping margins in this case to account for the unreported input 
values.

[[Page 33918]]

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. 
Specifically, section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act permits the Department to 
use facts available when a party does not provide the Department with 
information by the established deadline or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department. 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 that party as facts otherwise 
available. The purpose of applying an adverse inference is ``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., 2d Session at 870 (1994).
    In the instant investigation, the Department is not relying on 
adverse facts available, as respondents have supplied the Department 
with CONNUM-specific yield losses as requested. However, the 
information currently on record does not satisfy the statute with 
respect to the unreported inputs in the calculation of normal value. 
The respondents have said that they are unable to provide the 
Department with this information, and have not proposed an alternative 
methodology through which the Department could comply with its 
statutory obligation to value all inputs. Therefore, for this 
preliminary determination, the Department must rely on partial facts 
available for the value of recycled scrap. In its calculation of 
constructed value for this preliminary determination, the Department is 
therefore relying on information provided by the petitioners in its 
calculation of the unreported inputs. In their May 15, 2003, submission 
to the Department, petitioners provided worksheets demonstrating the 
unreported factors of production for metallic inputs using 
petitioners', JMC's, and Pannext's data. See Letter from Petitioners to 
the Department dated May 15, 2003 (Petitioners' May 15th Letter). 
Petitioners calculated an adjustment factor for the unreported metallic 
inputs based on the total quantity of inputs of purchased scrap and 
recycled scrap from the Petition, adjusting for respondent's reported 
yield losses and by-product adjustments for one type of subject 
merchandise. The Department does not have sufficient information to 
recalculate these input adjustments for the unreported metallic inputs 
on a CONNUM-specific basis. Therefore, for this preliminary 
determination, the Department is using an average of the adjustment 
ratios for JMC and Pannext as calculated in Petitioners' May 15th 
Letter at Exhibit 4, and increasing JMC, Pannext, and SLK's reported 
values for purchased steel scrap by this average, 56.83%.
    Additionally, in certain instances JMC and Pannext have reported 
their factors of production for purchased metallic inputs as less than 
one kilogram of input to make one kilogram of output. It is the 
Department's position that it is unreasonable that JMC and Pannext have 
documented an output weight greater than the input weight. As neutral 
facts available, for JMC and Pannext, when the reported metallic input 
to produce one kilogram of output was less than one kilogram, we have 
used the POI-wide average quantity for steel scrap input as reported in 
their response. See e.g., Pannext's Section D Questionnaire Response, 
dated March 3, 2003, at Exhibit 7, and JMC's Section D Questionnaire 
Response, dated February 24, 2003, at Exhibit D-8-A. For a further 
analysis of the company-specific calculations, please see JMC Analysis 
Memo, Pannext Analysis Memo, and SLK Analysis Memo.
    We valued the above input factors of production using publicly 
available published information as discussed in the ``Surrogate 
Country'' and ``Factor Valuations'' sections of this notice.
    In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.408(c)(1), where a producer 
sources an input from a market economy and pays for it in market 
economy currency, the Department employs the actual price paid for the 
input to calculate the factors-based NV. See also Lasko Metal Products 
v. United States, 43 F. 3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Lasko). 
However, though respondents JMC and Pannext reported that one of their 
material inputs used in the manufacture of certain types of subject 
merchandise were sourced from market economies and paid for in market 
economy currency, Pannext and JMC purchased this input from market 
economies that the Department considers to be potentially aberrational. 
The Department has determined that South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia 
maintain broadly available, non-industry specific export subsidies 
which may benefit all exporters to all export markets. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 6482 (February 12, 2002). Therefore, the Department has not used use 
the values of inputs from these countries from to calculate the 
surrogate values. See ``Factor Valuation'' section below.
    Pannext reported a ``self-produced'' factor for water among its 
factors of production for inputs. We preliminarily determine to value 
water through use of surrogate valuation, rather than based on 
surrogate valuation of the factors going into the production of those 
inputs.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production (FOP) reported by respondents for the 
POI. For JMC the Department has applied, as neutral facts available, an 
average of the FOP values reported by Pannext and SLK for the 
unreported input of resin coated sand used in the production of subject 
merchandise. A complete analysis of this issue is available in the JMC 
Analysis Memo. In the case of one respondent, a trading company, SLK, 
one of its suppliers failed to report a factor of production for resin 
coated sand. Therefore, for SLK the Department has applied, as neutral 
facts available, an average of the FOP values reported by Pannext and 
the values reported by the remaining four suppliers of SLK for resin 
coated sand. For SLK, the Department has also applied, as neutral facts 
available, and average of the FOP values reported by Pannext and JMC 
for the unreported inputs of limestone used in the production of 
subject merchandise. A complete analysis of this issue is available in 
the SLK Analysis Memo.
    To calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were 
multiplied by publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as 
noted below). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneousness of the data. As 
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to 
make them delivered prices. For a detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.

[[Page 33919]]

    We added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic producer 
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For those Indian rupee values not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale 
price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's 
International Financial Statistics.
    We valued raw material inputs using the weighted-average unit 
import values derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade 
of India: Volume II, July 2002 (Indian Import Statistics) for the time 
period corresponding to the POI and, where viable contemporaneous data 
was not available, we have used Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade 
of India: Volume II, December 2001 (2001 Import Statistics), as used in 
Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 68 FR 
7765, 7767 (February 18, 2003) (Non-Malleable Final), inflated to 2002 
levels (see Factor Valuation Memorandum). For the raw material input of 
one input used in the production of certain types of subject 
merchandise purchased by Pannext and JMC from a market economy 
supplier, for the reasons stated above in the ``Normal Value'' section, 
the Department is valuing these inputs using Indian Import Statistics.
    We valued electricity using the year 2002 Electricity Prices for 
Industry rate as reported by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 
Key World Energy Statistics from the IEA. The source is the same as in 
Non-Malleable Final, but it is more contemporaneous.
    We valued labor using the latest regression-based wage rate for the 
PRC found on Import Administration's Web page (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/) as described in 19 C.F.R. 351.408(c)(3).
    To value foreign inland truck freight costs, we relied upon per 
kilometer prices from The Financial Express, June 17, July 14, Sept. 1, 
and Oct. 6, 2002 (http://www.financialexpress.com). For JMC and Pannext 
we valued marine insurance based on publicly available price quotes 
from a marine insurance provider at http://www.rjgconsultants.com/insurance.html, and we used the actual costs of those services provided 
to the respondents by market economy suppliers. For JMC we valued 
brokerage and handling based on a publicly summarized version of the 
average value for brokerage and handling expenses reported in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded 
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 
36570 (May 24, 2002), and accompanying Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Because the Department did not find industry-specific data to 
calculate selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, factory 
overhead, and profit, we used the ``Finance of Large Public Limited 
Companies, 2000-01,'' a sample of 964 large public limited companies in 
India that were reported in the April 2002 Reserve Bank of India 
Bulletin, as previously used in the Non-Malleable Final.
    For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary 
determination, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all company information relied upon in making our final determination.

Rate for Cooperative Producers/Exporters That Were Not Selected

    For those PRC producers/exporters who responded to our separate 
rates questionnaire but were not selected as mandatory respondents 
(i.e., Chengde and SCE), we have calculated a weighted-average margin 
based on the rates calculated for those producers/exporters that were 
selected as mandatory respondents. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 41347, 41350 
(August 1, 1997).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the BCBP to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption as 
follows: for Pannext, SLK, Myland or Chengde, we will instruct BCBP to 
suspend liquidation on or after the date of publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register; for JMC, SCE and companies subject to the PRC-
wide rate, we will instruct BCBP to suspend liquidation on or after the 
date which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register, due to the Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 19779 (April 22, 2003). We will 
instruct the BCBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP or 
CEP, as indicated below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions 
will remain in effect until further notice.
    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                Manufacturer/exporter                  margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jinan Meide Casting Co., Ltd........................               13.80
Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd................              144.43
Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd..............                4.96
Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory..............               52.50
SCE Co., Ltd........................................               52.50
PRC-Wide Rate.......................................              146.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from JMC, SLK, Pannext, Chengde, and SCE.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination 
is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days 
after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our 
final determination whether the domestic industry in the United States 
is materially injured, or

[[Page 33920]]

threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than ten days 
after the date of issuance of the verification reports, and rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, no later than five 
days after the time limit for filing the case brief. See 19 C.F.R. 
351.309(c)(1)(i); 19 C.F.R. 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities used 
and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five 
pages total, including footnotes. In accordance with section 774 of the 
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or 
rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, any hearing will be held two days after 
the receipt of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, at a 
time and location to be determined. See 19 C.F.R. 351.310(d)(1). 
Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the 
hearing two days before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 
C.F.R. 351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 
a list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may 
make an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's 
case brief, and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments 
included in that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 C.F.R. 351.310(c).
    The Department will make its final determination no later than 135 
days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 28, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-14343 Filed 6-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S