[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40637-40642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-816]


Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part

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

ACTION: Preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review 
and notice of intent to rescind in part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from respondent Ta Chen Stainless 
Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Ta Chen'') and from Markovitz Enterprises, Inc. 
(Flowline Division), Shaw Alloy Piping Products Inc., Gerlin, Inc., and 
Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc., collectively (``petitioners''), the 
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. Specifically, the petitioners requested 
that the Department conduct the administrative review for Ta Chen, 
Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd. (``Liang

[[Page 40638]]

Feng''), and Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Tru-Flow''). This review 
covers Ta Chen, a manufacturer and exporter of the subject merchandise 
and Liang Feng and Tru-Flow, manufacturers of the subject merchandise. 
The period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002. 
With regard to Ta Chen, we preliminarily determine that sales have been 
made below normal value (``NV''). With regard to Liang Feng and Tru-
Flow, we are giving notice that we intend to rescind this review based 
on record evidence that there were no entries into the United States of 
subject merchandise during the POR. For a full discussion of the intent 
to rescind with respect to Liang Feng and Tru-Flow, see the ``Notice of 
Intent To Rescind in Part'' section of this notice.
    If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Bureau of Customs 
and Border Protection (``Customs'') to assess antidumping duties. The 
preliminary results are listed below in the section titled 
``Preliminary Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Freed or Robert Bolling, 
Enforcement Group III--Office 9, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3818 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.

Background

    On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Taiwan. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping 
Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings 
from Taiwan, 58 FR 33250 (June 16, 1993). On June 5, 2002, the 
Department of Commerce (``Department'') published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan for the 
period June 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. See Notice of Opportunity To 
Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 67 FR 38640 (June 5, 2002). 
On June 25, 2002, petitioners requested an antidumping duty 
administrative review for the following companies: Ta Chen, Liang Feng, 
and Tru-Flow for the period June 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. On June 
28, 2002, Ta Chen requested an administrative review of its sales to 
the United States during the POR. On July 24, 2002, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review for the period June 1, 2001, 
through May 31, 2002. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
In Part, 67 FR 48435 (July 24, 2002).
    On August 15, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Ta Chen, Liang Feng and Tru-Flow. On August 30, 2002, 
Liang Feng and Tru-Flow reported that they had no sales, entries or 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
On September 12, 2002, Ta Chen reported that it made sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR in its response to 
Section A of the Department's questionnaire. On October 4, 2002, Ta 
Chen submitted its response to Sections B, C, and D of the Department's 
questionnaire. On January 7, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a 
supplemental questionnaire to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on January 28, 
2003. On January 22, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a 
supplemental questionnaire to Section B of the Department's 
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on February 12, 
2003. On February 3, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a 
supplemental questionnaire to Section C of the Department's 
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on February 25, 
2003. On February 21, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a second 
supplemental questionnaire to Sections B, C, and D of the Department's 
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on March 26, 
2003. On March 3, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a second 
supplemental questionnaire to Section D of the Department's 
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on March 26, 
2003. On March 11, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen additional 
questions to its March 3, 2003 supplemental questionnaire to Sections 
A, B, and C of the Department's questionnaire, for which Ta Chen 
submitted its response on March 26, 2003. On April 7, 2003, the 
Department issued to Ta Chen a third supplemental questionnaire to 
Sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire, for which Ta 
Chen submitted its response on April 24, 2003. On April 11, 2003, the 
Department issued to Ta Chen additional questions to its April 7, 2003 
supplemental questionnaire to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on April 24, 
2003. On May 12, 2003, Ta Chen provided unrequested Section C and D 
databases. On May 21, 2003, the Department issued a letter to Ta Chen 
asking Ta Chen to explain the revisions to the Section C and D 
databases that it submitted on May 12, 2003. Ta Chen submitted its 
response to the May 21, 2003 letter on June 4, 2003. On May 23, 2003, 
the Department issued to Ta Chen a fourth supplemental questionnaire to 
Sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire, for which Ta 
Chen submitted its response on June 4, 2003.
    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may 
extend the deadline for conducting an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit of 245 days. On March 3, 2003, the Department 
extended the time limit for these preliminary results 92 days to June 
2, 2003 in accordance with the Act. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 9977 
(March 3, 2003). On May 22, 2003, the Department extended the time 
limit an additional 28 days to June 30, 2003 for the preliminary 
results of this administrative review. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 27988 (May 
22, 2003).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act'').

Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular 
exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the 
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales 
of the subject merchandise. The Department explained this practice in 
the preamble to the Department's regulations. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties 62 FR 27296, 27317 (May 19, 1997) (``Preamble''); 
see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan: Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) and 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001).

[[Page 40639]]

    Both Liang Feng and Tru Flow submitted a letter on the record 
stating that they had no sales of subject merchandise during the POR. 
See Letter dated August 30, 2002. To confirm their statements, on 
September 23, 2002, the Department conducted a Customs inquiry and the 
record from that inquiry indicates that there were no entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR. See the June 19, 2003 Memorandum to 
the File.
    Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department 
preliminarily intends to rescind this review as to Liang Feng and Tru 
Flow. The Department may take additional steps to confirm that these 
companies had no sales, shipments or entries of subject merchandise to 
the United States.

Scope of the Review

    The products subject to this administrative review are certain 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or 
unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings (``pipe fittings'') 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 this review 
is dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of 
Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of 
this order.

Period of Review

    The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2001 through May 
31, 2002.

Product Comparison

    For the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
pipe fittings sold in the United States, we considered all pipe 
fittings covered by the scope of review section above, which were sold 
by Ta Chen in the home market during the POR, to be ``foreign like 
products'' in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act. Where there 
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign 
like product on the basis of the physical characteristics reported by 
Ta Chen as follows (listed in order of preference): specification, 
seam, grade, size and schedule.
    Since some of Ta Chen's sales were actually produced by other 
unaffilated Taiwanese manufacturers, the Department has incorporated 
that information into the product comparison methodology. Petitioners 
have argued that the unaffiliated producers should be treated as 
exporters of subject merchandise to the U.S. See Petitioner's comments 
December 12, 2002, at 26-27. The record shows that Ta Chen both 
purchased from, and entered into tolling arrangements with, 
unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers of subject merchandise, and the 
record does not indicate that either manufacturer had knowledge that 
the subject merchandise would be sold into the United States market. 
See Ta Chen's September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire response at 2; 
see also Ta Chen's January 28, 2002 Section A supplemental 
questionnaire response at 1-12. According to Ta Chen's September 12, 
2002 Section A response, for subcontracted and resold fittings, Ta Chen 
labels itself as the producer. We have preliminarily determined that Ta 
Chen is the sole exporter, and that it is not appropriate to exclude 
sales of subject merchandise produced by unaffiliated manufacturers 
from Ta Chen's U.S. sales database.
    However, section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines ``foreign like 
product'' to be ``[t]he subject merchandise and other merchandise which 
is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the 
same country by the same person as, that merchandise.'' Thus, 
consistent with the Department's past practice, for products that Ta 
Chen has identified with certainty that it purchased from a particular 
unaffiliated producer and resold in the U.S. market, we have restricted 
the matching of products to identical or similar products purchased by 
Ta Chen from the same unaffiliated producer and resold in the home 
market.

Date of Sale

    The Department's regulations state that the Department will 
normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or 
producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date 
of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If Commerce can establish ``a different 
date [that] better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale,'' Commerce may choose a 
different date. Id.
    In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be 
used as the date of sale in both the home market and U.S. market. See 
Ta Chen's Sections B and C responses dated October 4, 2002. Moreover, 
Ta Chen did not indicate any industry practice which would warrant the 
use of a date other than invoice date in determining date of sale.
    Accordingly, as we have no information demonstrating that another 
date is more appropriate, we preliminarily based date of sale on 
invoice date recorded in the ordinary course of business by the 
involved sellers and resellers of the subject merchandise in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.401(i).

Affiliation

    The petitioners assert that Ta Chen was affiliated with its home 
market customer and vendor, PFP Taiwan (``PFP'') during the POR. At the 
Department's request, Ta Chen submitted information regarding PFP's 
corporate structure, ownership, and relationship with Ta Chen. The 
evidence currently on the record indicates that (1) the president of Ta 
Chen, Robert Shieh, and the head operating manager of PFP, Roger Tsai 
are distant relatives in that Roger Tsai is the brother of Robert 
Shieh's older brother's wife; (2) PFP leases office space out of Ta 
Chen's Taipei sales office, and pays Ta Chen appropriate consideration 
for the office space; and (3) Roger Tsai and his family members owned 
stock in Ta Chen as of June 2002 although their collective percentage 
of Ta Chen ownership is substantially below 5 percent. See Ta Chen's 
April 24, 2003 submission at pages 1-2, 17, and Exhibit 1; see also Ta 
Chen's May 12, 2003 submission at pages 2-3. Despite these connections, 
the evidence on the record at this time does not show that Robert 
Shieh, president of Ta Chen, has the ability to exercise control over 
PFP, or that Roger Tsai, head operating manager of PFP, has the ability 
to

[[Page 40640]]

exercise control over Ta Chen. Therefore, the Department preliminarily 
determines that Ta Chen and PFP are not affiliated. However, the 
Department will continue to investigate whether Ta Chen and PFP are 
affiliated for purposes of this administrative review.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by Ta Chen to the 
United States were made at prices below normal value (``NV''), we 
compared, where appropriate, the constructed export price (``CEP'') to 
the NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, 
we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly 
weight-averaged NV of the foreign like product.

Export Price/Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price as ``the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States. * * *'' Section 772(b) of the Act defines 
constructed export price as ``the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter. * * *''
    Consistent with recent past reviews, all of the sales at issue are 
being considered CEP sales because the sale to the first unaffiliated 
customer was made between Ta Chen International (CA) Corp. (``TCI''), 
located in the United States, and the unaffiliated customer in the 
United States. See Analysis Memorandum for Certain Stainless Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of the 2001-
2002 Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings from Taiwan (June 30, 2003) (``Analysis Memo''); see also Ta 
Chen's February 25, 2003 submission at pages 4-5. TCI takes title to 
the subject merchandise, invoices the U.S. customer, and receives 
payment from the U.S. customer. In addition, TCI handles all 
communication with the U.S. customer, incurs risk of non-payment, 
relays orders and price requests from the U.S. customer to Ta Chen, and 
pays for U.S. Custom duties, brokerage charges, U.S. antidumping 
duties, ocean freight and U.S. inland freight. See Ta Chen's January 
28, 2003 Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response at pages 14-15.
    Having determined such sales are CEP, pursuant to section 772(b) of 
the Act, we calculated the price of Ta Chen's sales based on CEP. We 
calculated CEP based on FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States and, where appropriate, we deducted 
discounts. In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1), the 
Department deducted commissions, direct selling expenses and indirect 
selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, which related to 
commercial activity in the United States. With respect to inventory 
carrying costs, we note that certain of Ta Chen's sales do not enter 
TCI's inventory prior to shipment to U.S. customers, but are shipped 
directly to the end user. Therefore, we removed the cost of goods sold 
for those sales used in the calculation of Ta Chen's reported inventory 
turnover ratio. We also made deductions for movement expenses, which 
include foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean 
freight, containerization expense, harbor construction tax, marine 
insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. 
Customs duties. Finally, where appropriate, in accordance with sections 
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, as discussed below, we 
calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' and ``Price-
to-Price Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

1. Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or 
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Ta Chen's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. In 
addition, Ta Chen stated that the home market is viable since sales to 
the home market are more than five percent by quantity of sales in the 
United States. See Ta Chen's September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire 
response at page 3. Because Ta Chen's aggregate volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we 
preliminarily determine that the home market is viable. We, therefore, 
based NV on home market sales.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (``COP'') 
in the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding,\1\ we have 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its 
home market were made at prices below the COP, pursuant to sections 
773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis of home 
market sales by Ta Chen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings From Taiwan (``Final Results''), 67 FR 78417 (December 
24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weight-averaged COP based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses (``G&A''), interest expenses, and packing 
costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by Ta Chen in its original 
and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For these preliminary 
results, we did not make any adjustments to Ta Chen's submitted costs.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    We compared the weight-averaged COP for Ta Chen to home market 
sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were 
made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and 
were not at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and 
(B) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to 
home market prices, less any movement charges, discounts, and direct 
and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
    In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of Ta Chen's sales of a given product were at prices less than 
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the

[[Page 40641]]

below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities as defined by 
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. When 20 percent or more of Ta Chen's 
sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined that such sales have been made in ``substantial 
quantities'' within an extended period of time, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. In such cases, 
because we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales 
were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we 
appropriately disregarded below-cost sales and used the remaining sales 
as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act.
D. Calculation of Constructed Value
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials, fabrication, G&A 
(including interest expenses), U.S. packing costs, direct and indirect 
selling expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we based selling expenses and G&A (``SG&A'') and profits on 
the actual amounts incurred and realized by Ta Chen in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling 
expenses, we used the actual weight-averaged home market direct and 
indirect selling expenses.

3. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers. Where 
appropriate, we deducted early payment discounts, credit expenses, and 
inland freight. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home 
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP 
comparisons. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added 
U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 
where there were no usable contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale 
observation, we based NV on CV.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market, or when NV 
is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 
and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we 
make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the 
CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference 
in levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-
61733 (November 19, 1997).
    In reviewing a respondent's request for a LOT adjustment, we 
examine all types of selling functions and activities reported in 
respondent's questionnaire response on LOT. In analyzing differences in 
selling functions, we determine whether the levels of trade identified 
by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997). 
In the present review, Ta Chen did not request a LOT adjustment, but 
did request a CEP offset.
    Ta Chen reported one LOT in the home market based on two channels 
of distribution: Trading companies and end-users. We examined the 
reported selling functions and found that Ta Chen's selling functions 
to its home market customers, regardless of channel of distribution, 
include inventory maintenance, technical services, packing, after-sales 
services, freight and delivery arrangements, general selling functions, 
some research and development, and customer service. See Ta Chen's 
September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire response at page 7; see also 
Ta Chen's January 28, 2003 Section A supplemental questionnaire 
response at pages 15-16. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that the 
selling functions for the reported channels of distribution are 
sufficiently similar to consider them as one LOT in the comparison 
market.
    Because Ta Chen reported that all of its CEP sales are made through 
TCI, Ta Chen is claiming that there is only one LOT in the U.S. market 
for its constructed export price sales and we preliminarily agree with 
Ta Chen's assertion that its U.S. sales constitute a single LOT. We 
examined the reported selling functions and found that Ta Chen's 
selling functions for sales to TCI include order processing, payment of 
marine insurance and packing for shipment to the United States. TCI 
handles the remaining selling functions for U.S. sales, such as: 
Communicating with U.S. customers; handling customer orders; dealing 
with U.S. customs duties, brokerage, inland freight and U.S. 
warehousing; taking seller's risk; and, incurring inventory carrying 
costs on the water and ocean freight.
    The Department compared Ta Chen's selling functions offered to its 
home market customers, trading companies and end users with Ta Chen's 
selling functions for U.S. sales offered to its wholly-owned 
subsidiary, TCI. Ta Chen's selling functions for sales to the U.S., 
namely, order processing, payment of marine insurance and packing for 
shipment, are less numerous and less advanced than Ta Chen's selling 
functions to its home market customers, which include inventory 
maintenance, technical services, packing, after-sales services, freight 
and delivery arrangements, general selling functions, some research and 
development, and customer service. Therefore, we preliminarily find 
that Ta Chen performed fewer selling functions for its U.S. sales than 
it did in the home market. Ta Chen requested a CEP offset due to 
differences in level of trade between its home market and U.S. sales 
(see Ta Chen's September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire response). 
When, as here, the NV is established at a LOT that is at a more 
advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, 
the Department's practice is to adjust NV to account for this 
difference. However, we were unable to quantify the LOT adjustment 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we applied a 
CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons, in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

[[Page 40642]]

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, 
in accordance with Section 773A(a) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Ta Chen for the 
period June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                   margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd............................        1.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, we would appreciate that parties submitting 
written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of 
those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results 
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has 
calculated an assessment rate applicable to all appropriate entries. We 
calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value, or entered quantity, as 
appropriate, of the examined sales for that importer. Upon completion 
of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will 
instruct Customs to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise 
by that importer.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each of the 
reviewed companies will be the rate listed in the final results of 
review (except that if the rate for a particular product is de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate 
of 51.01 percent, which is the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of the proprietary information disclosed 
under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 30, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-17215 Filed 7-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P