[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55935-55937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24576]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-813]


Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Korea; Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for the Period February 1, 2002 
through January 31, 2003.

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

SUMMARY: On March 25, 2003, in response to a request made by Flowline 
Division of Markovitz Enterprises, Inc., Gerlin, Inc., Shaw Alloy 
Piping Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc. (collectively, 
petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a 
notice of initiation of antidumping duty administrative review of 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea for the period 
February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003. The review covers three 
manufacturers/exporters of subject merchandise, Sam Sung Stainless 
Commerce & Ind. Co., Ltd. (Sam Sung), Sungkwang Bend Co., Ltd. 
(Sungkwang), and TK Corporation. On May 28, 2003, petitioners withdrew 
their request for review of Sungkwang and TK Corporation. Because the 
petitioners submitted the only request for review of these two 
respondents, and also requested the rescission within the 90-day time 
limit, the Department is rescinding the review with respect to these 
respondents in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Sam Sung failed to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire. As a result, we are basing 
our preliminary results for Sam Sung on adverse facts available.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, 
Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
2924 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 23, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea. 
See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings from Korea, 58 FR 11029 (February 23, 1993). On February 
3, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request 
administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 5272 (February 3, 2003). On February 28, 
2003, petitioners requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of TK Corporation, Sungkwang, and Sam Sung for 
the period February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003. There were no 
other requests for review. On March 25, 2003, the Department published 
a notice of initiation of antidumping duty administrative review of 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Korea, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i). See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 68 FR 14394 (March 25, 2003). On March 25, 2003 we issued the 
questionnaires to TK Corporation, Sungkwang, and Sam Sung. We received 
responses from TK Corporation and Sungkwang, but no response from Sam 
Sung. On May 28, 2003, petitioners withdrew their request for review of 
TK Corporation and Sungkwang. On August 14, 2003 we sent a letter to 
Sam Sung allowing it until August 25, 2003 to respond to the 
questionnaire. We again received no response from Sam Sung.

Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to its regulations, the Department will rescind an 
administrative review ``if a party that requested the review withdraws 
the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of 
initiation of the requested review.'' See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). The 
petitioners' withdrawal of their request for review of TK Corporation 
and Sungkwang was within the 90-day time limit; accordingly, we are 
rescinding the administrative review for the period February 1, 2002 
through March 31, 2003 with respect to these two companies, and will 
issue appropriate assessment instructions to the U.S.

[[Page 55936]]

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs).

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 
Act) provides that if an interested party or any other person: (A) 
withholds information that has been requested by the administering 
authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for 
the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, 
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly 
impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information 
but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), 
the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to 
section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.
    On March 25, 2003, the Department issued its standard antidumping 
questionnaire to Sam Sung. The Department received no response. On 
August 14, 2003 the Department issued a letter to Sam Sung extending 
the deadline for its response until August 25, 2003. Sam Sung again did 
not respond. The information in this questionnaire related to Sam 
Sung's pricing practices in its home and U.S. markets. Without this 
information the Department is unable to determine what level of 
dumping, if any, existed for Sam Sung during the period of review. 
Therefore, we determine that the use of facts available is warranted 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act because Sam Sung 
withheld information requested by the Department.
    Section 776(b) of the Tariff 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 
the 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. 316-103d at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``an affirmative finding of 
bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the 
Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997) 
(Final Rule).
    The Department finds that in not responding to the questionnaire, 
Sam Sung failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with requests for information. Therefore, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Tariff Act, we may, in making our determination, use an 
adverse inference in selecting from the facts otherwise available. This 
adverse inference may include reliance on data derived from the 
petition, a previous determination in an investigation or review, or 
any other information placed on the record. It is the Department's 
practice to assign the highest rate from any segment of a proceeding as 
total adverse facts available when a respondent fails to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. See e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from 
Taiwan; Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002). (``Consistent 
with Department practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate 
to the best of its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of 
the Act, as adverse facts available we have applied a margin based on 
the highest margin from any prior segment of the proceeding.... In this 
case, the highest margin from any segment of the proceeding is... the 
petition rate in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.'') 
Therefore, in the instant case, the Department is applying the margin 
of 21.2 percent to Sam Sung for these final results. This margin 
represents the highest margin calculated in the AD petition submitted 
in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
from the Republic of Korea, 57 FR 61881, 61882 (December 29, 1992).
    Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information, and section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides 
that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. The SAA provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See H.R. Doc. 316-103d at 870 (1994). To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used.
    To corroborate the margins calculated in the petition, we examined 
the basis of the rates contained in the petition. The U.S. prices in 
the petition were based on prices of a Korean manufacturer selling in 
the United States. See Petition at 24 and appendix M (May 20, 1992). To 
corroborate this information, we obtained U.S. import statistics from 
the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC). See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe from South Africa, 61 FR 24271, 24273 (May 14, 1996). 
However, the ITC reported this data on a weight basis, and the prices 
contained in the petition were reported on a per-piece basis. 
Therefore, we were unable to use the U.S. import statistics as 
corroboration. Nevertheless, the prices used in the petition were from 
a price list that was publicly available and obtained directly from the 
Korean seller and manufacturer. See Petition, at appendix M (public 
version) (May 20, 1992). Therefore, because it is an independent, 
public source, we find that it has probative value. See Certain Carbon 
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 68 FR 6409, 6411 (February 7, 
2003); 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, 41349 (August 1, 1997). The Department is aware of no other 
independent sources of information that would enable us to further 
corroborate the petition's margin calculation.
    The normal value was based on constructed value (CV). Petitioners 
based the cost of raw materials on petitioners' own consumption at 
prices reported in an antidumping petition for certain welded stainless 
steel pipes from Korea filed with the Department on November 18, 1991. 
Petitioners based direct and supervisory labor, natural gas, and 
electricity expenses on its own usage at wage rates and energy rates in 
Korea. The cost of utilities other than electricity and natural gas, 
tools and supplies, direct manufacturing overhead, and packing were 
based on petitioners' own actual experience in 1991. Petitioners added 
the statutory minimums of ten percent for general expenses and eight 
percent for profit to the cost of manufacturing. We examined the data 
submitted by the petitioners and the assumptions the petitioners made 
when calculating CV. The methodology was reasonable and was based on 
the data reasonably available to petitioners at the time. For purposes 
of the preliminary results of this review, we find no reason to believe 
the reliability of this information should be called into question.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether there are circumstances that

[[Page 55937]]

would render a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate the 
selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the 
Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate 
margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 
1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse 
facts available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin). See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 66 FR 11559 
(February 26, 2001).
    The highest margin in the history of the proceeding is 21.2 percent 
from the petition in the LTFV investigation. In this review, there are 
no circumstances indicating that this margin is inappropriate as 
adverse facts available. Therefore, we preliminarily find the 21.2 
percent rate is corroborated to the greatest extent practicable in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a 
weighted-average dumping margin of 21.2 percent exists for Sam Sung for 
the period February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003.
    Interested parties may submit written comments (case briefs) no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 
Sec. 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later 
than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
Sec. 351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument, not to 
exceed five pages in length. Any interested party may request a hearing 
within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR Sec. 351.310(c). Any hearing, 
if requested, will be held two days after the submission of rebuttal 
briefs, if any, or the first working day thereafter. See 19 CFR 
Sec. 351.310(d). The Department will publish a notice of the final 
results of the administrative review, which will include the results of 
its analysis of issues raised by the parties, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR Sec. 351.213(h).
    The Department will determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within 15 
days of publication of the final results of review. We will direct 
Customs to assess the resulting assessment rate against the entered 
customs values for the subject merchandise on each entry during the 
review period.

Cash Deposit

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of 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, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company will be the rate shown above; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
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 investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
review, any previous reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash 
deposit rate will be 21.2 percent, the ``all others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
from the Republic of Korea, 57 FR 61881, 61882 (December 29, 1992).
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR Sec.  351.402(f) to file a 
certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to 
liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure 
to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.This administrative 
review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: September 16, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-24576 Filed 9-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S