[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 125 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37051-37056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10219]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-881


Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 23, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on malleable iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic 
of China. The period of review is December 2, 2003, through November 
30, 2004. The administrative review covers four exporters.
    We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary 
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made 
certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for this 
review are listed in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section, 
below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita H. Chen for Chengde Malleable 
Iron General Factory and Langfang PanNext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd., Ryan 
A. Douglas for SCE Development (Canada) Co., Ltd., or Jennifer Moats 
for LDR Industries, Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd., AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1904, 202-482-1277 and 
202-482-5047, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 23, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on malleable iron pipe fittings (``malleable 
pipe'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Certain 
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 76234 (December 23, 2005) (``Preliminary Results''). In 
our Preliminary Results, the Department noted we would provide the 
respondents with additional opportunity to explain the methodology used 
and to correct certain deficiencies noted in respondents' questionnaire 
responses and reported data. Accordingly, the Department received 
supplemental questionnaire responses after the Preliminary Results from 
Langfang PanNext Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd. and its U.S. affiliate, 
PanNext Fittings Corporation (collectively ``Pannext''), on January 20, 
and March 27, 2006, from SCE Development (Canada) Co. Ltd. (``SCE'') on 
March 7, 2006, from Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory 
(``Chengde'') on March 14, 2006, and from LDR Industries Inc. and 
Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. (collectively ``SLK'') on March 
15, May 23, and May 30, 2006.
    On April 6, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the 
time limit for the completion of the final results of this review until 
June 21, 2006. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe 
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 17439 (April 6, 
2006); see, also, Notice of Correction to Notice of Extension of Time 
Limit for Final Results of Antidumpnig Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of 
China, 71 FR 25148 (April 28, 2006).
    On April 12, 2006, Anvil International, Inc. and Ward Manufacturing 
(collectively ``the petitioners'') submitted notice that they did not 
intend to request a hearing in this segment. As there were no requests 
for a hearing, the Department did not conduct a hearing in this review.
    We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary 
Results. On May 1, 2006, the Department received case briefs from the 
petitioners, SLK, and Pannext. On May 8, 2006, we received rebuttal 
briefs from the petitioners, SLK, and Pannext. Chengde and SCE did not 
submit case or rebuttal briefs. On May 24, 2006, the petitioners 
submitted comments on SLK's May 23, 2006, submission; on May 25, 2006, 
SLK submitted rebuttal comments. The Department learned from the 
petitioners' case brief that Chengde failed to serve them the 
proprietary version of its revised March 16, 2006, supplemental 
questionnaire response or the electronic U.S. sales and factors-of-
production (``FOP'') databases. Upon learning of Chengde's lack of 
proper service, the Department instructed Chengde to serve the 
petitioners a complete copy of the proprietary version of its response, 
and provided all interested parties an additional briefing period to 
comment on this response. We did not receive any comments from

[[Page 37052]]

interested parties in response to this briefing opportunity.
    We conducted this review in accordance with sections 751 and 777 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213 and 
351.221 (2005).

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is December 2, 2003, through 
November 30, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain 
malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from 
the PRC. The merchandise is currently classifiable under item numbers 
7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Excluded from the scope of 
this order are metal compression couplings, which are imported under 
HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal compression coupling consists of a 
coupling body, two gaskets, and two compression nuts. These products 
range in diameter from [bdfrac12] inch to 2 inches and are carried only 
in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in 
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Administrative Review of Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From 
the People's Republic of China,'' dated June 21, 2006 (``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list 
of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. 
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 of the main 
Department building, and is accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Separate Rates

    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that SLK, Pannext, and 
SCE met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. We 
preliminarily found the information provided by Chengde to be 
unreliable; as a result, we preliminarily found Chengde did not qualify 
for separate rate status and deemed it to be part of the PRC-wide 
entity. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 76235. However, we provided 
Chengde with an additional opportunity to correct deficiencies in its 
reported data following the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary 
Results, 70 FR at 76240. Because we find for these final results that 
Chengde provided reliable information, as requested by the Department, 
except as noted below in the ``Facts Otherwise Available'' section, we 
must establish whether Chengde has met the criteria for the application 
of a separate rate.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
subject merchandise subject to review in a non-market economy (``NME'') 
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with 
respect to its exports. See Separate-Rates Practice and Application of 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries, Policy Bulletin 05.1 (April 5, 2005) (``Policy 
Bulletin 05.1''). To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently 
independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria 
established in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 
and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 
22586-7 (May 2, 1994).
    Chengde provided the requested separate rate information in its 
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, 
consistent with the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 
19027-8 (April 30, 1996), we performed a separate rates analysis to 
determine whether Chengde is independent from government control.

A. Absence of de jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; and (2) any 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies.
    One of the respondents placed on the record a number of documents 
to demonstrate absence of de jure control including the ``Foreign Trade 
Law of the People's Republic of China,'' the ``Administrative 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the 
Registration of Legal Corporations,'' and the ``Law of the People's 
Republic of China on Foreign Capital Enterprises.'' See Preliminary 
Results, 70 FR at 76235. The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and 
found that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001) 
(unchanged in the final determination See Final Results of New Shipper 
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001)). We have no information in this 
proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. Thus, 
we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary 
finding of an absence of de jure government control based on: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's 
business license; and (2) the legal authority on the record 
decentralizing control over the respondent.

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 
31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically 
considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject 
to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) whether the 
exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and 
without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its

[[Page 37053]]

export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of 
profits or financing of losses. See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at p. 2.
    Chengde reports that it is a privately owned company controlled by 
its board of directors, with no relationship to the national, 
provincial, or local governments. Chengde also reports: (1) There is no 
government participation in the setting of its export prices; (2) 
authorized employees and representatives have the authority to 
negotiate and bind the company to sell merchandise; (3) the owners 
select the management of Chengde; and (4) there are no restrictions on 
the use of Chengde's export revenue, which is reinvested in capital or 
distributed to the owners, or on its use of foreign currency. Chengde's 
questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated 
among exporters. During our analysis of the information on the record, 
we found no information indicating the existence of government control. 
Consequently, we determine for these final results that Chengde has met 
the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
or any other person: (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority 
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department shall promptly inform the person 
submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to 
the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to 
remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits 
established for the completion of the review.
    In this administrative review, the Department issued antidumping 
questionnaires to all respondents on March 14, 2005. We rejected 
Chengde's questionnaire response on April 29, 2005, because of certain 
filing format and service deficiencies but provided Chengde with an 
opportunity to correct the deficiencies and resubmit its response, 
which it did on
    May 18, 2005. In addition, before the Preliminary Results, we 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Chengde on July 20, August 4, and 
November 23, 2005. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to SLK before 
the Preliminary Results on July 12, 2005, and allowed SLK to provide 
corrections to its database on September 12, 2005. As discussed in our 
Preliminary Results, we noted that we would provide Chengde and SLK 
with an additional opportunity to cure deficiencies after the 
Preliminary Results, and would revisit the facts-available 
determinations made in the Preliminary Results for our final results of 
review. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 76238-76240. Thereafter, 
Chengde provided supplemental responses on December 20, 2005, and March 
14, 2006; SLK provided supplemental responses and corrections to its 
database on March 15, May 23, and May 30, 2006. Accordingly, and 
pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department provided Chengde 
and SLK with opportunities to remedy or explain deficiencies on the 
record.
    The Department has concluded that, within the meaning of section 
776(a)(2) of the Act, Chengde and SLK failed to provide certain 
necessary information in response to the Department's questionnaires 
and various requests for information. More specifically, we find that 
Chengde and SLK withheld information or did not provide information to 
the Department pertaining to various factors of production in the form 
and manner requested by the Department as discussed further below. See 
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The lack of these necessary data 
impeded the conduct of the administrative review consistent with 
section 776(a)(2)(c) of the Act. A portion of the data provided by 
these respondents are not reliable or usable and the use of partial 
facts otherwise available is appropriate.
    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 request for information. See, also, Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. 
Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994); and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United 
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (instructing that 
Commerce should make a showing that ``it is reasonable to conclude that 
less than full cooperation has been shown''). In determining if the 
application of adverse facts available (``AFA'') is warranted, the 
Department may also draw some inferences from a pattern of behavior. 
See Reiner Branch GmbH & Co KG v. U.S., 2026 F.Supp. 2d 1323, 1337 (CIT 
2002). Furthermore, to determine whether the respondent ``cooperated'' 
by ``acting to the best of its ability'' under section 776(b) of the 
Act, the Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of 
submitted information, and whether the respondent has hindered the 
calculation of accurate dumping margins. Certain Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
    In applying an adverse inference, the Department must consider that 
a respondent may not be rewarded for failing to cooperate and providing 
the agency with ``flawed'' information. See NSM Ltd. v. United States, 
170 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1312 (C.I.T. 2001). We believe that an adverse 
inference, applied to Chengde's and SLK's FOP data, would 
satisfactorily address their insufficient submissions and provide for a 
result that ``would not benefit [these companies] from [their] lack of 
cooperation'' in the review. Id. at 1312. Accordingly, as discussed 
further below, we assigned Chengde partial AFA for water and assigned 
SLK partial AFA for missing packing FOPs for certain reported control 
numbers (``CONNUMs'').
    We conclude that, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, 
Chengde and SLK failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their 
abilities in complying with the Department's requests for information 
for certain FOPs and that the use of partial AFA is appropriate. After 
repeated opportunities to provide information, Chengde's and SLK's 
responses to the Department's questions concerning water and packing 
FOPs, respectively, contained significant omissions, and overall lack 
of clarity.
    For SLK, we determine it is appropriate to use facts available for 
certain CONNUMs for which it reported contradictory packing information 
by reporting different packing FOP usage rates for the same product. 
For those CONNUMs, we applied, as facts available, the highest usage 
rate reported for each packing input of that CONNUM to calculate the 
packing expense for these CONNUMs for the final results. Because SLK's 
response to our request for a revised packing database remains 
inadequate with

[[Page 37054]]

respect to those CONNUMs for which there are no reported packing FOPs, 
we determine that it is appropriate to apply facts available with an 
adverse inference for these CONNUMs. For those CONNUMS for which SLK 
did not provide any packing FOP information, we applied, as AFA, the 
highest usage rate reported for each packing input in SLK's response to 
replace the missing packing FOPs for these CONNUMs in SLK's margin 
calculations for the final results. See Memorandum to the File 
entitled, ``Analysis for the Final Results of the Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable Pipe Iron Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China: LDR Industries, Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke 
Hardware Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 21, 2006 (``SLK Final Analysis 
Memorandum'').
    For Chengde, we find that it did not cooperate to the best of its 
ability to report the water used in its production of subject 
merchandise. In Chengde's May 14, 2006, submission, it reported all the 
requested information except for water, which had been consistently 
reported in its previous submissions. Thus, as a result, the Department 
applied the highest reported water value from Chengde's previous 
databases to all reported CONNUMs it sold to the United States during 
the POR as partial AFA for the final results. See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 18; and Memorandum to the File entitled, 
``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003-2004 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable Iron 
Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Chengde Malleable 
Iron General Factory Chengde Final Analysis Memorandum,'' dated June 
21, 2006 (``Chengde Final Analysis Memorandum'').
    Finally, consistent with the Preliminary Results, we continued to 
apply neutral facts available for one of SLK's suppliers which was 
unable to provide the Department with FOP information due to 
extraordinary circumstances. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 76238. 
Because of the proprietary nature of this discussion, we can not 
provide full detail in this notice.\1\ We note, however, that for 
future reviews of this proceeding, all respondents, including SLK, must 
comply with all requests for information by the Department and, 
therefore, should maintain the appropriate books and records to comply 
with these requests. If respondents are unable to comply with such 
requests, the Department may resort to the use of AFA absent the 
information on the record that is required by the Department to conduct 
its proceedings in accordance with section 776(b) the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For further information, see Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1; see, also, the proprietary Memorandum from Jennifer 
Moats to the File entitled, ``Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., 
Ltd.'s Missing Factors of Production Information from Supplier A,'' 
dated June 21, 2006, and Exhibit SD6-4 of SLK's August 10, 2005, 
response (collectively, ``Supplier A Support'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary information,'' 
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. In the instant review, the Department is not relying on 
secondary information, but rather on primary information because the 
Department is calculating a dumping margin on the basis of the actual 
FOP experience of the respondents. Therefore, this provision does not 
apply.
    In addition, because we preliminarily determined that Chengde was 
not entitled to a separate rate and was part of the PRC-wide entity, 
the PRC-wide entity was under review in the Preliminary Results. 
Because the PRC-wide entity failed to provide requested information in 
the administrative review, the Department preliminarily determined a 
dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using the facts otherwise 
available on the record, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act. 
Furthermore, because we determined that the PRC-wide entity failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability, we used an adverse inference in 
making our decision, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
    For the Preliminary Results, we revised the PRC-wide rate to 200.24 
percent based on SCE's calculated margin in the Preliminary Results, as 
SCE's preliminary margin was the highest margin in this proceeding. For 
the final results, because all companies for which this review was 
initiated qualify for separate rates, the PRC-wide entity is not 
covered by this review. Accordingly, the PRC-wide rate will remain 
111.36 percent. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings 
From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003).

Export Price

    For all sales made by Chengde, we based the U.S. price on export 
price (``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because 
the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to 
importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise 
warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the 
packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in 
the United States. We deducted foreign brokerage and handling, foreign 
inland freight, marine insurance, ocean freight, and U.S. inland 
freight expenses, where appropriate, from the gross unit price, in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine normal value (``NV'') using an FOP 
methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. Because information on the record does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV 
based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.408(c).

Other Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received from interested parties 
and information on the record of this review, we made changes to the 
margin calculations for all respondents.

Pannext:

    Prior to the Preliminary Results, Pannext erroneously reported 
entered value based on a percentage discount of the U.S. gross price, 
and not as the absolute entered value. After the Preliminary Results, 
Pannext provided, in response to the Department's supplemental 
questionnaire, a revised U.S. sales database reporting entered value, 
where known, on a per-unit (piece) basis. Because we find Pannext's 
revised entered values to be reliable, for the final results we 
adjusted Pannext's margin calculation program to use its reported 
entered values, where appropriate, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1). See Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Analysis 
Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003-2004 Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China: Langfang PanNext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd.,'' 
dated June 21,

[[Page 37055]]

2006 (``Pannext Final Analysis Memorandum'').

SLK:

    We corrected certain clerical errors identified by SLK and the 
petitioners in their briefs for the final results. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comments 5, 7, 9, and 19 and SLK Final Analysis 
Memorandum.
    For other respondent-specific calculation changes, see Issues and 
Decision Memorandum; Chengde Final Analysis Memorandum; Pannext Final 
Analysis Memorandum; ``SLK Final Analysis Memorandum; and 
Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final 
Results of the 2003-2004 Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty 
Order on Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's 
Republic of China: SCE Development (Canada) Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 21, 
2006 (``SCE Final Analysis Memorandum''). Public versions of these 
memoranda are on file in the CRU.

Surrogate Values:

    We revalued several surrogate values used in the Preliminary 
Results due to some minor inadvertent data entry errors. These 
surrogate values include brokerage and handling, limestone and the 
limestone inflator, cast-iron scrap, steel scrap, corrugated boxes, 
tape, wooden pallets (discussed further below), nails, plastic bags, 
zinc dust, and coal. For a detailed discussion on the revaluation of 
these surrogate values, see Memorandum to the File entitled, ``2003-
2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: 
Factors Valuations for the Final Results of the Administrative 
Review,'' dated June 21, 2006.
    For the Preliminary Results, we incorrectly calculated the 
surrogate value for wooden pallets in kilograms, rather than in pieces 
for certain respondents. For the final results, we calculated the 
surrogate value for wooden pallets in pieces where appropriate. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19; Chengde Final Analysis 
Memorandum; SLK Final Analysis Memorandum; and SCE Final Analysis 
Memorandum.

Final Results of the Review

    The Department determined that the following final dumping margins 
exist for the period December 2, 2003, through November 30, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-average
                      Exporter                         percentage margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory..............               81.64
Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd..............                6.95
LDR Industries, Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware               14.69
 Co., Ltd...........................................
SCE Development (Canada) Co., Ltd...................               53.64
PRC-wide rate.......................................              111.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for the final 
results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue, as appropriate, 
appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication 
of these final results of administrative review. In accordance with 19 
CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rate for the merchandise subject to this review. 
Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we 
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered 
value of the sales to each importer (or customer). Where an importer 
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we 
will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/
customer's entries during the review period. Where we do not have 
entered values for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per-unit assessment 
rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to 
each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total 
quantity sold to that importer (or customer). To determine whether the 
duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the 
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer 
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered 
value. Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero 
or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries 
without regard to antidumping duties.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of this notice of final results for all shipments of malleable pipe 
from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of 
the Act: (1) For the above listed respondents, which each have a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate 
indicated above; (2) the cash deposit rates for any other companies 
that have separate rates established in the investigation, but were not 
reviewed in this segment, will not change; (3) for all other PRC 
exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 111.36 percent, the PRC-wide 
rate established in the See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe 
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 
2003); and (4) for non-PRC exporters of malleable iron pipe fittings 
from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the 
PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit rates, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in 
the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties 
occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained in the APO 
itself. 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 notice of final results of administrative review is issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.


[[Page 37056]]


    Dated: June 21, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Comment 1. SLK: Partial Facts Available for Missing Factors of 
Production
Comment 2. SLK: Partial Facts Available for Missing Purchase Quantities
Comment 3. SLK: By-product Offset for Scrap
Comment 4. SLK: By-Product Offset for SLK's Supplier
Comment 5. SLK: Double Counting of Steel Scrap and Pig Iron
Comment 6. SLK: Application of Average Packing FOP
Comment 7. SLK: Calculation of Total U.S. Price
Comment 8. SLK: Use of Most Recently Submitted Data
Comment 9. SLK: Treatment of U.S. Warehousing Expense
Comment 10. Pannext: FOP Data
Comment 11. Pannext: Treatment of Ocean Freight
Comment 12. Pannext: Calculation of Entered Value
Comment 13. Pannext: Calculation of Normal Value Using Facts Available
Comment 14. Chengde: Adverse Facts Available
Comment 15. Chengde: Recycled Scrap
Comment 16. Treatment of Steel Sand, Woven Bags, Cooling Liquid, Clay, 
Firewood, and Silicon Sand
Comment 17. Freight: Application of Sigma Rule
Comment 18. Valuation of Water
Comment 19. Wooden Pallet Clerical Error
[FR Doc. E6-10219 Filed 6-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S