[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39997-39998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3688]



[[Page 39997]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-809]


Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part

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

SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel 
flanges from India. See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from 
India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Intent to Revoke the Order in Part, 70 FR 10953 (March 7, 2005) 
(Preliminary Results). This review covers imports of subject 
merchandise from Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (Viraj), and Echjay Forgings 
Pvt., Ltd. (Echjay). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2003, 
through January 31, 2004.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no 
changes in the margin calculations for either Viraj or Echjay. 
Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary 
results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for Viraj and 
Echjay are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of 
Review.'' In addition, we are revoking Viraj from the order.

DATES: Effective Date: July 12, 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 March 7, 2005, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 
We invited parties to comment on those preliminary results. On April 6, 
2005, we received a case brief from Echjay. No party filed rebuttal 
comments.

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.

Scope of the 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.

Revocation

    On March 1, 2004, Viraj requested revocation of the antidumping 
duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). In a March 12, 2004 submission Viraj 
provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e).
    The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty 
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act. 
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department 
must follow in revoking the order, the Department has developed a 
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation 
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the 
current review period and that the company will not sell subject 
merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the 
company sold commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the 
United States in each of the three years forming the basis of the 
request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order 
if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the 
revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will 
consider: (1) Whether the company in question sold subject merchandise 
at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; 
(2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its immediate 
reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company, 
subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than 
NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty 
order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2).
    In the preliminary results, we found the request from Viraj met all 
of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We continue to find this is the 
case for Viraj. With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), 
our final margin calculations show that Viraj sold stainless steel 
flanges at only a de minimis level of dumping during the current 
period. See dumping margins below. In addition, Viraj sold stainless 
steel flanges at not less than NV in the two previous administrative 
reviews (i.e., Viraj's dumping margin was either zero or de minimis). 
See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10409 (March 5, 2004) and 
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 
42005 (July 16, 2003).
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we 
determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States in 
commercial quantities in this review and each of the two prior 
administrative reviews. Additionally, we find that the continued 
application of the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to 
offset dumping. Therefore, we determine that Viraj qualifies for 
revocation of the order on stainless steel flanges pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to merchandise produced 
and exported by Viraj should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.222(f)(3), we are terminating the suspension of liquidation for any 
of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2004, and will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund any cash 
deposits for such entries.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in Echjay's brief to this administrative review 
are addressed

[[Page 39998]]

in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from 
Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import 
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated July 5, 2005, which is hereby adopted by 
this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to 
which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, 
is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce 
building. In addition, a complete version of the decision memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the decision memorandum are 
identical in content.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine the weighted-average 
dumping margins for the period February 1, 2003, through January 31, 
2004, to be as follows:

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

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific 
duty assessment rates for the merchandise in question based on the 
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard 
to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates were de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad 
valorem ratios based on export prices. We will direct CBP to assess the 
resulting assessment rates uniformly on all entries of that particular 
importer made during the period of review. The Department will issue 
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication 
of these final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Because we have revoked the order with respect to Viraj's exports 
of subject merchandise, we will order CBP to terminate the suspension 
of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2004, and to 
refund all cash deposits collected for such unliquidated entries.
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) Since the margin for Echjay 
was less than 0.50 percent, and hence de minimis, no cash deposit shall 
be required for Echjay; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be that established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review, any previous 
reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 
162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty 
Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; 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 of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties or countervailing 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 or countervailing 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties or countervailing duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) or their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which 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 terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: July 5, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues Raised in Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Assignment of Antidumping Rate to Exporter As Well As 
Manufacturer

[FR Doc. E5-3688 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P