[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40859-40867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15411]


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

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.

[[Page 40860]]


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 Feng''), Tru-Flow 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Tru-Flow''), and PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. 
(``PFP''). This review covers Ta Chen, a manufacturer and exporter of 
the subject merchandise and Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, and PFP, 
manufacturers of the subject merchandise. The period of review 
(``POR'') is June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003. With regard to Ta 
Chen, we preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value (``NV''). With regard to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, and PFP, 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, Tru-Flow, and PFP, 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 U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties. The preliminary 
results and cash deposit instructions are listed below in the section 
titled ``Preliminary Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE:  July 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Welton or James Doyle, 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-
0165 and (202) 482-0159, 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 2, 2003, the 
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, 2002, 
through May 31, 2003. See Notice of Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 68 FR 32727 (June 2, 2003).
    On June 30, 2003, Petitioners requested an antidumping duty 
administrative review for the following companies: Ta Chen, Liang Feng, 
Tru-Flow, and PFP for the period June 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003. On 
June 30, 2003, Ta Chen requested an administrative review of its sales 
to the United States during the POR. On July 29, 2003, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review for the period June 1, 2002, 
through May 31, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
In Part, 68 FR 44524 (July 29, 2003). On March 3, 2004, the Department 
extended the deadline for the preliminary results in this 
administrative review until May 30, 2004. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary 
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 9997 
(March 3, 2004). On April 27, 2004, the Department extended the 
preliminary results further, until June 29, 2004. See Stainless Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 
FR 22763 (April 27, 2004).
    On, August 6, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Ta Chen, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, and PFP. On August 26, 
2003, Liang Feng, Tru Flow, and PFP each provided letters on the record 
stating that they had no sales of subject merchandise during the POR. 
On September 3, 2003, Ta Chen reported in its response to Section A of 
the Department's questionnaire \1\ that it made sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. On October 6, 2003, Ta 
Chen submitted its response to sections B, C, and D of the Department's 
questionnaire. On October 17, 2003, and October 21, 2003, Petitioners 
submitted deficiency comments regarding Ta Chen's Section A response 
and Section B-D responses, respectively. On October 28, 2003, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section A questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta 
Chen's response to this supplemental Section A was filed on November 
19, 2003. Ta Chen submitted additional information in relation to the 
Section A supplemental on November 24, 2003. On December 1, 2003, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section B-D questionnaire, to which Ta 
Chen responded on January 2, 2004. On December 9, 2003, Petitioners 
submitted deficiency comments regarding Ta Chen's November 19, 2003, 
supplemental Section A response. These deficiency comments were revised 
in a submission from Petitioners on December 10, 2003. On December 19, 
2003, Ta Chen submitted additional comments expanding upon its November 
19, 2003, supplemental Section A response and in response to the 
Petitioner's December 9 and 10, 2003, deficiency comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation, and the manner in which the 
company sells that merchandise in all markets. Section B requests a 
complete listing of all of the company's home market sales on the 
foreign like product or, if the home market is not viable, sales of 
the foreign like product in the most appropriate third-country 
market. Section C requests a complete listing of the company's U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise. Section D requests information on the 
cost of production of the foreign like product and the constructed 
value of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests 
information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 9, 2004, the Department issued a second supplementary 
Section A questionnaire to Ta Chen, to which Ta Chen responded on 
January 23, 2004. On March 9, 2004, the Department issued a third 
supplemental Section A questionnaire, to which Ta Chen responded on 
April 14, 2004. On March 23, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental 
Section C-D questionnaire to Ta Chen, to which Ta Chen responded on 
April 15, 2004.
    On April 28, 2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments 
regarding Ta Chen's April 14, 2004 supplemental Section A questionnaire 
response. On May 11, 2004, Ta Chen filed comments in response to the 
deficiency comments from Petitioners, and expanding upon its April 14, 
2004 supplemental Section A response.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act'').

[[Page 40861]]

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).
    On August 26, 2003, Liang Feng, Tru Flow, and PFP each submitted 
letters on the record stating that they had no sales of subject 
merchandise during the POR. To confirm their statements, on September 
5, 2003, the Department conducted a customs inquiry and determined to 
its satisfaction that there were no entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 
Department preliminarily intends to rescind this review as to Liang 
Feng, Tru Flow, and PFP. The Department may take additional steps to 
confirm that these companies had no sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this order 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 currently 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, 2002, through May 
31, 2003.

Affiliations

    Section 771(33) of the Act states that the Department considers the 
following as affiliated: (A) Members of a family, including brothers 
and sisters (whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, 
and lineal descendants; (B) any officer or director of an organization 
and such organization; (C) partners; (D) employer and employee; (E) any 
person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with 
power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or 
shares of any organization and such organization; (F) two or more 
persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under 
common control with, any person; and (G) any person who controls any 
other person and such other person. For purposes of affiliation, 
section 771(33) states that a person shall be considered to control 
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position 
to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.
    The petitioners assert that Ta Chen was affiliated with numerous 
companies involved in the trading, distribution, and/or production of 
specialty steel products during the POR under section 771(33) of the 
Act. Ta Chen has denied that affiliations exist with these entities. In 
addition, Ta Chen asserts that these companies have no involvement with 
the subject merchandise or foreign like product. Applying the standard 
outlined in section 771(33) of the Act, the evidence on the record 
supports a finding that the following five entities were affiliated 
with Ta Chen \2\ during the entire POR: Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled 
Products, Inc. (``Emerdex 1''), Emerdex Stainless Steel, Inc. 
(``Emerdex 2''), Emerdex Group (``Emerdex 3''), Emerdex Shutters, Inc. 
(``Emerdex 4'') (Collectively, these four companies are referred to as 
the ``Emerdex Companies''), and Dragon Stainless, Inc. (``Dragon''). 
See Memorandum for Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary, from Joseph 
Welton, Analyst, Ta Chen Affiliations Memorandum: Stainless Steel Butt-
Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan 2002-2003 Review (June 29, 2004) 
(``Affiliation Memo'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ta Chen and its subsidiaries include Ta Chen Stainless Pipe 
Co., LTD, Ta Chen International (``TCI''), Ta Chen (BVI) Holdings 
LTD., Ta-Jei Investment Co., LTD, Ta Ever Investment Co., LTD., Ta 
Chen Steel Investment Co., LTD., Banner Fastener Inc., Tension 
Control Bolting, Inc., Shiziazhuang Hitai Precision Casting Co., 
LTD., and Ta Chen Baoding Precision Casting Co., LTD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is also information on the record concerning Ta Chen's 
relationships with numerous other companies. However, there is no 
evidence indicating that these companies were involved in any way that 
potentially affected the production, pricing, costs, or sales of 
subject merchandise or foreign like product, or that these companies 
had any direct transactions with Ta Chen. Because these companies were 
not involved in subject merchandise or foreign like product, it is not 
necessary to consider further whether the following companies are 
affiliated with Ta Chen: AMS Specialty Steel, Inc., AMS Specialty 
Steel, LLC SOSID 0654511, AMS Specialty Steel LLC SOSID 
552293, AMS Steel Corporation, Stainless Express, Inc., 
Stainless Express Products, Inc., Estrela Steel, Inc., Estrela, LLC, 
South Coast Stainless, Inc., Millennium Stainless, Inc., DNC Metals, 
Inc., Billion Stainless, Inc., Southstar Steel Corporation, NASTA 
International, Inc., Becman, LLC, Becmen Specialty Steels, Inc., Becmen 
Trading International, KSI Steel, Inc., K. Sabert, Inc., Sabert 
Investments, PFP, and two companies owned by the immediate family of 
the President of Ta Chen whose names are considered business 
proprietary information by Ta Chen. (See Affiliation Memo)

Ta Chen's Reporting

    In this proceeding, the interested parties have introduced to the 
record information identifying numerous commercial entities with 
various degrees of affiliations with Ta Chen (identified in the 
``Affiliations'' section above), nearly all of which trade or produce 
specialty steel products. Petitioners have alleged that affiliations 
exist with these companies, however, Petitioners have not provided 
evidence indicating that these companies were involved in subject 
merchandise or the foreign like product. Nevertheless, the

[[Page 40862]]

Department further investigated Ta Chen's dealings with these 
potentially affiliated companies to determine whether there was any 
potential effect on the margin if they were affiliated with Ta Chen.
    The Department issued several supplemental questionnaires seeking 
information concerning these steel trading companies. Specifically, the 
Department requested disclosure of Ta Chen's affiliated parties in the 
original Section A questionnaire, dated August 26, 2004. In addition, 
we repeated requests for information concerning the identification of 
affiliated parties in our October 28, 2003, January 9, 2004, and March 
9, 2004, supplemental Section A questionnaires. Ta Chen submitted its 
responses to our questionnaires on September 3, 2003, November 19, 
2003, January 23, 2004, and April 14, 2004. Subsequent to each of Ta 
Chen's responses to our requests for supplemental information (November 
19, 2003, January 23, 2004, and April 14, 2004), Petitioners submitted 
comments asserting that there were additional allegedly affiliated 
parties which had not been disclosed by Ta Chen, and which the record 
shows trade or produce specialty steel products. However, Petitioners 
did not support any allegations that the alleged affiliates were 
involved in the specialty steel product which is the subject of this 
review. In addition, Ta Chen submitted rebuttal information identifying 
certain potentially affiliated parties on November 24, 2003, December 
19, 2003, and May 11, 2004, again noting that the companies were not 
involved in the subject merchandise or foreign like product.
    The Department has reviewed all available information regarding Ta 
Chen's possible affiliates, particularly those which trade or produce 
specialty steel products. (See Affiliation Memo). Although the business 
activities of these potential affiliates appear to involve products 
which are close to the subject merchandise, there is no information on 
the record supporting Petitioners' assertions that most of these 
companies are involved in subject merchandise or foreign like product. 
We did, however, find evidence indicating that two of these entities 
were involved in a certain number of transactions involving subject 
merchandise. 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 29, 2004) (``Analysis Memo''). We have 
applied adverse facts available in those instances. Since we only found 
two entities that clearly deal in subject merchandise, we have limited 
our affiliation and facts available findings to those two entities.

Partial Adverse Facts Available

    For the reason stated before, we determine that the use of partial 
AFA is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to Ta 
Chen. For a description of the calculations which apply AFA in this 
review, see Analysis Memo.

A. Use of Partial Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide 
such information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information which 
cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination.
    Section 782(e) of the Act requires the Department to consider 
information that is submitted by the respondent and is necessary to the 
determination but does not meet all the applicable requirements 
established by the Department if (1) the information is submitted by 
the deadline established for its submission; (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 in providing the information and meeting the requirements 
established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5) 
the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    The record shows that Ta Chen sold subject merchandise to Emerdex 
2, an affiliated company under common control with the Emerdex 
Companies (See Analysis Memo at 2), but Ta Chen failed to report 
Emerdex 2's downstream sales of subject merchandise to unaffiliated 
customers during the POR, despite being instructed to report downstream 
sales to unaffiliated customers (See August 6, 2003 questionnaire at G-
5). In addition, the record shows that Dragon, an affiliated company, 
incurred U.S. selling expenses for subject merchandise on behalf of Ta 
Chen (See Analysis Memo at 2-3). Ta Chen failed to report the total 
amount of these expenses, and the record does not indicate that these 
expenses were captured in Ta Chen's U.S. sales database. Therefore, 
with respect to these transactions, we have applied FA under section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
    For the preliminary determination, under section 776(a)(2)(B) of 
the Act, we have used facts otherwise available on the record of this 
review to calculate a dumping margin for Emerdex 2's downstream sales 
of subject merchandise in the United States, as the record does not 
contain those sales. Section 772(b) of the Act states that the 
Department must base its constructed export price calculations on the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United 
States to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as 
adjusted. Ta Chen did not report Emerdex 2's downstream sales of 
subject merchandise. Therefore, we must use facts otherwise available 
to determine the constructed export price of those sales.
    Also, under section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have used the facts 
otherwise available on the record of this review to calculate Dragon's 
total U.S. selling expenses for subject merchandise which were incurred 
on behalf of Ta Chen, and to allocate those selling expenses to Ta 
Chen's U.S. sales of subject merchandise. Section 772(d) of the Act 
states that the Department must adjust the constructed export price for 
the amount of any selling expenses incurred in the United States by or 
for the account of the producer or exporter. The record shows that 
Dragon incurred selling expenses in the United States related to sales 
of subject merchandise for the account of Ta Chen (See May 11, 2004, 
comments at Exhibit I-C). However, Ta Chen did not describe the nature 
or extent of these expenses. We have used facts otherwise available 
under section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act to determine the amount of these 
U.S. selling expenses for our calculation of Ta Chen's constructed 
export price for the relevant sales.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Partial Facts Available

    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the 
interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for 
information. See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 
30, 2002). 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

[[Page 40863]]

Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
    In selecting from among the facts available, the Department finds 
it appropriate to apply an adverse inference because Ta Chen did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability to provide information concerning 
Emerdex 2 or Dragon. The Department has determined that each of these 
companies was controlled by Ta Chen throughout the POR, and thus Ta 
Chen had the ability to provide such information. (See Affiliation 
Memo)
    As noted in the Analysis Memo at 2 and the Affiliation Memo at 7, 
Ta Chen failed to report its downstream sales to Emerdex 2, an 
affiliated company. In our March 9, 2004, supplemental questionnaire, 
prior to the identification on the record of Emerdex 2, the Department 
requested Ta Chen to identify any sales of subject merchandise to 
Emerdex 1, an affiliate of Ta Chen, a steel trader and steel producer, 
and a customer of and vendor to Ta Chen.\3\ (See March 9, 2004, 
questionnaire at 4). Ta Chen responded that no sales of subject 
merchandise existed. (See April 14, 2004, response at 28). Ta Chen also 
did not identify the sales of subject merchandise to Emerdex 2. Given 
this opportunity to identify sales to affiliated parties, Ta Chen chose 
to interpret the Department's question in the narrowest possible 
manner, and thus only reported whether sales existed to Emerdex 1, an 
entity which is legally separate, but, as the record indicates, is not 
commercially separate from Emerdex 2 or the other Emerdex Companies. 
Thus, with respect to the Emerdex Companies, Ta Chen did not cooperate 
to the best of its ability because it has withheld information from the 
Department concerning its relationship with these companies, its sales 
of subject merchandise to these companies, and its purchases of inputs 
from these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that Emerdex 2 had not been identified on the record 
at the time of this supplemental questionnaire, but that Emerdex 2 
and Emerdex 1 share the same commercial facilities in California, 
and that the Department has found them to be affiliated companies 
under section 771(33)(G) of the Act (See Affiliation Memo at 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Dragon, Ta Chen did not report the total amount of U.S. 
selling expenses incurred by Dragon for U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, and the record does not indicate that these expenses were 
reported in Ta Chen's Section C database. The Department clearly 
indicated its interest in Dragon's activities in supplemental 
questionnaires, dated October 28, 2004, and March 9, 2004. Ta Chen made 
no indication that Dragon incurred any expenses on behalf of Ta Chen in 
its responses to those questionnaires, or in its original Section C 
questionnaire response (See October 6, 2003, November 19, 2003, and 
April 14, 2004, responses). Ta Chen also failed to respond to the 
Department's request for a full description of its relationship with 
Dragon. (See April 14, 2004, response at 2). Subsequently, Ta Chen 
provided evidence to the Department on May 11, 2004, which indicated 
that Dragon was responsible for certain selling activities related to 
the subject merchandise in the United States, and therefore, that such 
selling expenses exist (See May 11, 2004, comments at Exhibit I-C). 
However, Ta Chen has failed to describe the nature of those expenses or 
to report the extent of those expenses. Although this evidence does 
show one relevant aspect of Ta Chen's relationship with Dragon, the 
respondent has still not given a clear or full description of the 
relationship. As such, the Department cannot ascertain whether any 
additional effects on the margin calculation exist due to transactions 
between Ta Chen and Dragon. Because the record shows that Ta Chen has 
the ability to control Dragon, and thus had the ability to provide the 
information, we find that Ta Chen did not act to the best of its 
ability to provide such information necessary for the Department to 
make its preliminary determination, despite repeated requests for 
information concerning Dragon.
    As such, under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department has made 
adverse inferences in selecting among the facts otherwise available 
concerning (1) the Emerdex Companies' downstream sales of subject 
merchandise; and (2) Dragon's selling expenses in the United States. 
(See Analysis Memo at 2-3)
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). The 
Department applies AFA ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See SAA at 870. The Department also considers the extent to 
which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting 
a rate. See Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of 
Final Results and Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 60472, 60477 (Nov. 10, 1997), SAA at 870. Petitioners 
have suggested that the Department use 76.20 percent, the highest 
margin in this proceeding, in its application of AFA to the current 
review. (See December 9, 2003 submission at 6).
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
partial AFA, information derived from the petition, the final 
determination from the less-than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to 
corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as 
facts available. Secondary information is defined as ``information 
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or 
review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or 
any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject 
merchandise.'' See SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA clarifies 
that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 
870.
    To choose a substitute margin for Emerdex 2's known U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise, we have selected a margin from among all other 
sales of subject merchandise in the United States by Ta Chen during the 
POR. We note that the range of margins calculated on these sales is 
substantially untainted by our application of partial AFA to inputs 
purchased from Emerdex 1 and expenses incurred by Dragon. However, 
there is an abnormally wide range of potential values from which to 
choose. In addition, given the very large number of sales observations 
with positive margins, a virtual continuum of values exists between the 
minimum and the maximum margin for these sales, such that no single 
margin within the continuous range appears to be more reasonable than 
any other.
    We note that the 76.20 percent margin suggested by Petitioners 
originated from the petition, was applied to Ta Chen as AFA in the 
1992-1994 review, and continues to be applicable for imports of subject 
merchandise from Tru-Flow. (See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings From Taiwan; Final Results of Administrative Review 65 FR 2116 
(January 13, 2000); and Amended Final Determination and Antidumping 
Duty Order: Certain Welded Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From 
Taiwan 58 FR 33250, 33251, (June 16, 1993)). Given that no new 
information

[[Page 40864]]

has been presented to indicate that the rate is unreliable subsequent 
to its applications in this proceeding as described above, we find that 
the rate is reliable. We also note that 76.20 percent falls within the 
range of margins calculated for Ta Chen's U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise in the POR of the current review, and that a substantial 
portion of Ta Chen's margins for these sales were both greater than and 
less than 76.20 percent. Therefore, the 76.20 percent margin is 
currently relevant to Ta Chen's U.S. sales of subject merchandise.
    Therefore, for Ta Chen's known sales of subject merchandise in the 
United States to Emerdex 2, we preliminarily assigned 76.20 percent as 
partial AFA. (See Analysis Memo at 2).
    For selling expenses incurred by Dragon, we have allocated the 
total amount of all known payments from Ta Chen to Dragon, for its 
services, to the U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which Dragon was 
responsible. (See Analysis Memo at 2-3) We note that the record 
indicates that additional payments for services related to selling 
activities may have been made to Dragon, but we are unaware of the 
amounts.

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.
    As 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. 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 the manufacturers 
had knowledge that the subject merchandise would be sold into the 
United States market. See Ta Chen's September 3, 2003, Section A 
questionnaire response at A-19-20. According to Ta Chen's September 3, 
2003, 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.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by Ta Chen to the 
United States were made at prices below 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 CEP 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, certain sales 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 Memo). 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. customs duties, 
brokerage charges, U.S. antidumping duties, ocean freight and U.S. 
inland freight. See Ta Chen's January 28, 2003 Section A questionnaire 
response at pages 8.
    Having determined such sales are CEP sales, 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) of the 
Act, the Department deducted commissions, direct selling expenses and 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, which 
related to commercial activity in the United States. 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.

U.S. Dollar Short Term Interest Rate

    As explained in Policy Bulletin 98.2, Imputed Credit Expenses and 
Interest Rates, (February 23, 1998) (``Policy Bulletin 98.2''), the 
imputation of credit cost is a reflection of the time value of money 
that must correspond to a figure reasonably calculated to account for 
such value during the gap period between delivery and payment, and it 
should conform with ``commercial reality.'' See Policy Bulletin 98.2 
citing LMI-La Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United States, 912 F.2d 
455 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``LMI''). Imputed credit represents ``the cost to 
the respondent for not receiving immediate payment for its sales.'' See 
Policy Bulletin 98.2. ``To calculate the credit expense on U.S. sales, 
the Department generally uses the weighted-average borrowing rate 
realized by a respondent on its U.S. dollar-denominated short-term 
borrowings.'' See Policy Bulletin 98.2.
    Ta Chen reported its costs in the Section C U.S. sales database for 
imputed credit costs and inventory carrying costs based on the Federal

[[Page 40865]]

Reserve's short-term prime rate. Ta Chen argued in its original Section 
C response that it did not borrow short-term in U.S. dollar-denominated 
loans during the POR. (See October 6, 2003 response at 32.) In its 
April 15, 2004, supplementary Section C response, Ta Chen argued that 
certain outstanding U.S. dollar-denominated loans related to a 
revolving line of credit were classified in its financial statements as 
non-current liabilities because Ta Chen had the ability and intent to 
refinance those short-term loans over the long-term. (See April 15, 
2004 response at 4.) Ta Chen noted that this practice of classification 
of short-term or current loans as non-current liabilities is in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (``GAAP'') in 
the United States. We note that these particular loans mature in less 
than one year, according to the terms of Ta Chen's financing agreement 
which covers these loans. (See April 15, 2004, response at Exhibit C-3-
2.) We also note that the record indicates that the terms of these 
loans, which were determined under the financing agreement signed 
several years ago, have remained unchanged since the previous review. 
(See April 15 2004, questionnaire response at Exhibit C-3-2.) Finally, 
we note that in the most recent review the Department used these same 
loans as its basis to calculate Ta Chen's U.S. short-term interest 
rate, and that these same loans were also classified by Ta Chen as non-
current liabilities in its financial statements during that review. 
(See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Final 
Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 78417 (December 24, 2002); and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 12; and TCI's 2001 audited financial 
statements in Exhibit 12 of the September 3, 2003, Section A response 
of this review). Therefore, the record indicates that the terms of 
these short-term loans have not changed since the previous review, and 
Ta Chen's presentation of these short-term loans as non-current 
liabilities in its annual financial statements has been consistent 
since the previous review.
    Thus, in accordance with the above, the Department has determined 
that these loans continue to be short-term loans for antidumping 
purposes, as was the case in the previous review. Accordingly, we 
recalculated U.S. imputed credit costs using Ta Chen's weighted average 
U.S. dollar-denominated short-term interest rate reported in Ta Chen's 
January 2, 2004, response. This average rate was based on the actual 
borrowing experience of Ta Chen for its U.S.-dollar-denominated short-
term loans. (See Analysis Memo at 3-4.) The recalculated imputed credit 
costs and inventory carrying costs were deducted from the CEP sales 
price in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act.

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, and 
found that the home market sales are greater than five percent of U.S. 
sales by volume. In its original Section A response, Ta Chen stated 
that the home market is viable, as sales to the home market are more 
than five percent by quantity of sales in the United States. (See Ta 
Chen's September 3, 2003, Section A questionnaire response at page A-
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,\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice of Amended Final Results Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
From Taiwan, 68 FR 4763, (January 30, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 sections 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 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 sections 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.

[[Page 40866]]

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 
sales, 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 an 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 
sales 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 an 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 LOTs 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 an 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 3, 2003, Section A questionnaire response at page 8; 
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 CEP 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 United 
States, 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 3, 2002, Section A questionnaire 
response at 11). The NV is established at an LOT that is at a more 
advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions. 
However, we were unable to quantify an 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.

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, 2002, through May 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd............................         5.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 40867]]

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 CBP 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 CBP 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 29, 2004.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-15411 Filed 7-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P