[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 43 (Monday, March 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10953-10957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-919]



[[Page 10953]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-809]


Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke 
the Order In Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged 
stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India 
manufactured by Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay) and Viraj Forgings Ltd. 
(Viraj). The period of review (POR) covers February 1, 2003, through 
January 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that neither Echjay nor 
Viraj sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) in the 
United States during the POR. We have also preliminarily determined to 
revoke the order with respect to subject merchandise produced and 
exported by Viraj.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Mike Heaney or Robert 
James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone : 
(202) 482-2924, (202) 482-4475, or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel flanges from India. See Amended Final 
Determination and Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless 
Steel Flanges from India, 59 FR 5994, (February 9, 1994). On February 
3, 2004, the Department published the ``Notice of Opportunity to 
Request Administrative Review'' for this order covering the period 
February 1, 2003 through January 31, 2004 (69 FR 5125). See Antidumping 
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 5125, (February 3, 
2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 (b)(1), Echjay and Viraj 
requested that we conduct this administrative review. On March 26, 
2004, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the 
2003-2004 POR. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation In Part, 69 FR 15788 
(March 26, 2004).
    On October 29, 2004, we extended the time limit for the preliminary 
results of this administrative review to February 28, 2005. See 
Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 
65835 (October 29, 2004).

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless 
steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured 
to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, 
and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are 
weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for 
threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/
butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a 
machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of 
the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; 
however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in 
the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast 
stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are 
manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this 
order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 
7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of 
whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Tariff Act), we verified information provided by Viraj 
from January 17, 2005, through January 21, 2005, using standard 
verification procedures, the examination of relevant sales, cost, and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public versions of the verification reports, on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit (CRU) located in room B-099 in the 
main Department of Commerce building.

Intent to Revoke, In Part

    On February 27, 2004, Viraj requested revocation of the order 
covering stainless steel flanges from India as it pertains to its 
sales. According to section 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, the Department 
``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping duty order upon 
completion of a review. Although Congress has not specified the 
procedures the Department must follow in revoking an order, the 
Department has developed a procedure for revocation set forth at 19 CFR 
351.222. Pursuant to subsection 351.222(b), the Department may revoke 
an antidumping duty order, in part, if it concludes: (i) An exporter or 
producer has sold the merchandise at not less than NV for a period of 
at least three consecutive years, (ii) the exporter or producer has 
agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order if the 
Secretary concludes the exporter or producer, subsequent to the 
revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV, and (iii) the 
continued application of the antidumping duty order is no longer 
necessary to offset dumping.
    A request for revocation must address these three elements. The 
company requesting the revocation must do so in writing and submit the 
following statements with the request: (1) The company's certification 
that it sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the 
current review period and that, in the future, it will not sell at less 
than NV; (2) the company's certification that during each of the 
consecutive years forming the basis of the request, it sold the subject 
merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities; and (3) the 
agreement to reinstatement in the order if the Department concludes the 
company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at 
less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1).
    We preliminarily find that the request from Viraj meets all the 
criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). With regard to the criteria of 
subsection 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations indicate 
that Viraj did not sell stainless steel flanges in the United States at 
less than NV during the instant POR. See ``Preliminary Results of 
Review,'' below. In addition, Viraj has not sold stainless steel 
flanges at less than NV in the three previous administrative reviews. 
See Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From

[[Page 10954]]

India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 
62439 (October 7, 2002); Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From 
India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 42005 (July 16, 2003), and Certain Forged 
Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 10409 (March 4, 2004).
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we 
preliminarily determine Viraj sold the subject merchandise in the 
United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years 
cited by Viraj to support its request for revocation. See ``Analysis 
Memorandum for Viraj Forgings, Ltd. for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Flanges from India,'' dated 
February 28, 2005, which is in the Department's CRU, room B-099. Thus, 
we preliminarily find Viraj had zero or de minimis margins in each of 
the last four consecutive administrative reviews, one more than 
required by our regulations, and sold in commercial quantities in all 
four years. Also, we preliminarily determine the application of the 
antidumping duty order to Viraj is no longer warranted for the 
following reasons: (i) the company had zero or de minimis margins for a 
period of at least three years; (ii) the company has agreed to its 
immediate reinstatement in the order if the Department finds it has 
resumed making sales at less than NV and (iii) the continued 
application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Viraj qualifies for 
revocation of the order on certain forged stainless steel flanges from 
India pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and that the order with respect 
to Viraj Forgings, Ltd. should be revoked.
    If these preliminary findings are followed in our final results of 
review, we will revoke the order in part with respect to certain forged 
stainless steel flanges from India produced and exported by Viraj 
Forgings, Ltd. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), we will 
terminate the suspension of liquidation for certain forged stainless 
steel flanges from India produced and exported by Viraj Forgings, Ltd. 
that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after February 1, 2004, and will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (Customs) to refund any cash deposits for such entries.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States by Echjay and Viraj were made at less than NV, we compared the 
export price or constructed export price, as appropriate, to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-
average prices for NV and compared these to the prices of individual 
export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) transactions.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all products described by the Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order 
section, above, which were produced and sold by Echjay and Viraj in the 
home market, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. 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 characteristics and reporting instructions listed in 
the Department's questionnaire. Where there were no sales of identical 
or similar merchandise in the home market suitable for comparing to 
U.S. sales, we compared these sales to constructed value (CV), pursuant 
to section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act.
    During the course of this review both respondents requested that 
the Department modify the model match characteristics used in comparing 
U.S. and home market sales. Echjay asked that a new characteristic be 
added to capture the flanges' thickness, while Viraj proposed a new 
variable be added to differentiate between custom-ordered and standard 
flanges. However, the Department believes the existing model match 
methodology captures those physical characteristics which impact 
directly on the cost and price of these products. Viraj's custom-made 
products vary only minutely from its standard products, while Echjay's 
request for a separate thickness category is unnecessary because the 
differing wall thicknesses are necessarily captured by basing our 
comparisons on weight. Accordingly, we have not altered our model match 
criteria for this review.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, EP is defined 
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 the 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. In accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is 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, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d).
    For sales of both respondents in the United States, we used EP in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act in those instances 
where the merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts of record. For both Echjay and Viraj, we also used 
CEP in accordance with section 772(b) for those sales made through 
their respective U.S. affiliates, Echjay USA, Inc. and Viraj USA, Inc.
    We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the prices 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We 
used the date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed 
C&F, CIF duty paid, FOB, or ex-dock duty paid prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff 
Act, including: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
ocean freight, and marine insurance.
    For CEP we also deducted those selling expenses incurred in selling 
the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (e.g., bank commissions and charges, documentation fees, 
etc.), and imputed credit. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the 
Tariff Act, we deducted an amount for profit allocated to the expenses 
deducted pursuant to sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act.

Duty Drawback

    Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that EP or CEP 
shall be increased by ``the amount of any import duties imposed by the 
country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been 
collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to 
the United States.'' The Department determines that an adjustment to 
U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when a

[[Page 10955]]

company can demonstrate that there is (i) a sufficient link between the 
import duty and the rebate, and (ii) sufficient imports of the imported 
material inputs to account for the duty drawback received for the 
export of the manufactured product (the so-called ``two-prong test''). 
See Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 
(Ct. Int'l Trade 1999); see also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 
162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001) (Commerce's rejection of 
claimed adjustments to either price or cost for Indian duty drawback 
sustained; remanded on other grounds).
    Echjay claimed it received Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) 
certificates from the Indian government which it books in an ``Export 
Incentives Ledger'' See Echjay's June 2, 2004, Section C response at 
Annexure H. According to Echjay, these DEPB certificates, awarded based 
on the FOB value of the finished goods, are intended to offset import 
duties on raw materials, ``and also to nullify the incidence of 
interest rates higher than international rates, high indigenous cost of 
electricity and fuels, and local taxes which are built into the cost of 
locally produced and sold steel.'' Id. Echjay stated it ``sold'' all of 
its DEPB certificates during the POR. See Echjay's November 1, 2004, 
Supplemental Response at page 8.
    Viraj claimed it received DEPB certificates to offset the Indian 
customs duties otherwise payable on imported raw materials. See Viraj's 
June 2, 2004 Section C, response at C-26. In a supplemental response, 
Viraj stated it has either used DEPB Licenses for self-import of raw 
material or given such DEPB Licenses to Viraj Alloys, Ltd. (VAL), an 
affiliated steel producer. Viraj further claimed VAL used the licenses 
for importing stainless steel scrap and assorted alloys used in 
manufacturing stainless steel billets. See Viraj's October 29, 2004, 
Supplemental Response at 9.
    The Department finds that Echjay and Viraj have not provided 
substantial evidence on the record to meet the requirement of the first 
prong of the two-prong test, to wit, to establish the necessary link 
between the import duty and the reported rebate for duty drawback. 
While both respondents indicated they received duty drawback in the 
form of certificates issued by the Government of India, they have 
failed to establish the necessary direct link between the import duty 
paid, and the rebate given by the Government of India. Echjay's 
response makes clear that much of the DEPB certificate program has no 
bearing on home market import duties of any kind. Moreover, Viraj 
acknowledges it did not use all its DEPB certificates to claim a rebate 
on the inputs used to manufacture subject stainless steel flanges but, 
rather, transferred some of them to VAL to import scrap and alloys for 
the manufacture of raw steel. Finally, we note the value of the DEPB 
certificates is calculated based upon the FOB prices of the finished 
goods, as exported. All these factors demonstrate clearly that there is 
no direct link between these certificates, and the companies' own 
imports of inputs, and the eventual production of finished goods for 
export. Therefore, the Department is denying a duty drawback credit for 
the preliminary results of this review.

Normal Value

A. Viability

    In order to determine whether there is 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 
during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), 
for each respondent we compared the volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. We found no reason to determine that quantity was not the 
appropriate basis for these comparisons, so value was not used. See 
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2). 
Therefore, for both respondents we based NV on home market sales to 
unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the 
ordinary course of trade.
    We based our comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume 
of home market and third country sales on reported stainless steel 
flange weight, rather than on number of pieces. The record demonstrates 
that there can be large differences between the weight (and 
corresponding cost and price) of stainless steel flanges based on 
relative sizes, so comparisons of aggregate data would be distorted for 
these products if volume comparisons were based on the number of 
pieces.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding, the 
Department disregarded certain Viraj sales made in the home market at 
less than its cost of production. See Certain Forged Stainless Steel 
Flanges From India; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 63758 (November 10, 2003) 
(unchanged for final, 69 FR 10409, March 5, 2004). Accordingly, in the 
instant review the Department determined it had reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that Viraj made sales in the home market at prices 
below the cost of producing the merchandise in this review. See section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act. As a result, we solicited 
information on Viraj's cost of production to determine if Viraj had 
made below-cost home market sales in this review.

C. Calculation of Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act we 
calculated cost of production (COP) based on the sum of Viraj's cost of 
materials and fabrication of the foreign like product, adding amounts 
for home market selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), 
interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on the COP 
data submitted by Viraj in its original and supplemental cost 
questionnaire responses for these calculations.

D. Test of Home Market Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP for Viraj's home market sales 
of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of the 
Tariff Act in order to determine whether these sales were made at 
prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales at prices less than COP, we examined whether: (i) Such sales were 
made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and 
(ii) 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 Tariff Act. We compared COP to home market prices, less any 
applicable movement charges and direct selling expenses.

E. Results of the Cost Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, when less than 
20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than COP we did not disregard any such sales because they were not 
made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. When 
20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during 
the POR were at prices less than COP we disregarded the below-cost 
sales because they were made in substantial quantities within an 
extended period of time, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff 
Act. See Viraj Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, dated February 28, 
2005.

[[Page 10956]]

Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales made during the POR 
by Viraj.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For Echjay and Viraj, we compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous 
sales of the foreign like product in India. As noted, we considered 
stainless steel flanges identical based on the following five criteria: 
grade, type, size, pressure rating, and finish. We used a 20 percent 
difference-in-merchandise (difmer) cost deviation cap as the maximum 
difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, which we 
calculated as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and 
comparison market variable costs of manufacturing divided by the total 
cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product. For both respondents, we 
also made adjustments for differences in packing costs between the two 
markets and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. Finally, we adjusted for 
differences in the circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons 
to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling 
expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. Finally, for Echjay, 
we also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for 
indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or United States 
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the 
other (the ``commission offset'').

Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV 
on CV if we were unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market 
match for the U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of 
materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject 
merchandise, SG&A, and profit. In accordance with 772(e)(2)(A) of the 
Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred 
and realized by the respondent 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 
weighted-average comparison market selling expenses. Where appropriate, 
we made COS adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of 
the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made COS 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses. For Echjay, we also made adjustments for 
home market indirect selling expenses to offset commissions in EP 
comparisons.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to 
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the home 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 an affiliated importer after the deductions required under 
section 772(d) of the Tariff Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
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 Tariff 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 the levels between NV 
and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 
19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from Echjay and Viraj about the marketing stages involved 
in their U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities in the respective markets. In identifying levels of 
trade for CEP we considered only the selling activities reflected in 
the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 
772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron Technology v. United States, 243 
F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported levels of 
trade are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
reports differences in levels of trade the functions and activities 
should be dissimilar.
    Echjay and Viraj both reported one channel of distribution and one 
LOT in the home market contending that home market sales to 
distributors and wholesalers were made at the same level of trade, and 
involved the same selling activities. See Viraj's May 4, 2004, Section 
A response at 11 (Viraj Section A Response); see also, Echjay's May 11, 
2004, Section A response at 8-9 (Echjay Section A Response). In fact, 
for both respondents all merchandise was sold in the home market on ex 
works terms. See, e.g., Echjay's June 2, 2004, Section B Response at 7 
and Viraj's June 2, 2004, Section B response, at 14. After examining 
the record evidence provided by both companies, we preliminarily 
determine that for Echjay and Viraj, a single LOT exists in the home 
market.
    Echjay and Viraj further contended they provided substantially the 
same level of customer support on their U.S. EP sales as they provided 
on their home market sales to distributors or wholesalers. For both 
companies this included customer contact, order processing, arranging 
customer pick-up at the mill, invoicing, and processing payments. The 
Department has determined that we will find sales to be at the same LOT 
when the selling functions performed for each customer class are 
sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351.412 (c)(2). We found the selling 
functions to be virtually identical for home market sales to 
distributors and wholesalers. We also found Echjay and Viraj performed 
virtually the same level of customer support services on their U.S. EP 
sales as they did on their home market sales. See Echjay Section A 
Response and Viraj Section A Response, op. cit.. Therefore, for Echjay 
and Viraj, we preliminarily find that a single LOT exists for these 
companies' EP sales which is on the same LOT as sales in the home 
market.
    As to CEP sales, in its Section A Response Echjay indicated its 
U.S. subsidiary, Echjay USA, Inc., performed no selling activities or 
services beyond notifying the final customer of the merchandise's 
arrival at the U.S. port; customers were responsible for arranging 
shipment and Customs clearance at their own expense. See Echjay Section 
A Response at 9. Echjay further asserts ``[f]or all our sales, both to 
our US market as well as our [h]ome market, the functions and services 
provided by us remain the same and hence the sales are at the same 
level of trade.'' Similarly, although Viraj sells through a U.S. 
affiliate, Viraj USA, Inc., the subject merchandise is shipped directly 
to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. Viraj notes it is ``claiming no CEP 
offset in calculation of normal value.'' Viraj Section A Response at 14 
(original emphasis).

[[Page 10957]]

    The record evidence supports a finding that in both markets and in 
all channels of distribution, Echjay and Viraj perform essentially the 
same level of services. These include order processing, packing, 
shipping and invoicing of sales, and processing of payments. Based on 
our analysis of the selling functions performed on EP and CEP sales in 
the United States, and sales in the home market, we determine that the 
EP and CEP and the starting price of home market sales represent the 
same stage in the marketing process, and are thus at the same LOT. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that no level of trade adjustment or 
CEP offset is appropriate for either Echjay or Viraj.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect 
on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review we preliminarily find the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2003, 
through January 31, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echjay Forgings, Ltd.......................................         0.03
Viraj Forgings, Ltd........................................         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 
days of publication. See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 
CFR 351.310(d).
    Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed 
no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to 
submit with the argument 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief 
summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, we 
would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would 
provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of 
any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results 
of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of 
the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 
120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) 
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-
specific assessment rates based on the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR divided by 
the total entered value, or quantity (in kilograms), as appropriate, of 
the examined sales. Upon completion of this review, where the 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we shall instruct Customs to 
assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of flanges from India 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 
Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will 
be the rates established in the final results of administrative review; 
if the rate for a particular company is zero or de minimis, i.e., less 
than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company; 
(2) for manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review, but 
covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a 
previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent 
rate published in the final determination or final results for which 
the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (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 that 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the 
cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994, February 9, 1994). 
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) 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: February 28, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-919 Filed 3-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S