[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50345-50347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21728]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-839]
Forged Steel Fittings From Italy: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports
of forged steel fittings from Italy are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
DATES: Applicable October 5, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Bowen at (202) 482-0768 or
Brian Smith at (202) 482-1766, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 17, 2018, Commerce published in the Federal Register the
Preliminary Determination and invited interested parties to comment.\1\
As no interested party submitted comments, we have made no changes to
the estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in the
Preliminary Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Forged Steel Fittings from Italy: Preliminary
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures, 83 FR 22954 (May 17, 2018) (Preliminary Determination),
and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2016, through
September 30, 2017.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are forged steel
fittings from Italy. For a full description of the scope of this
investigation, see the ``Scope of the Investigation,'' at the Appendix
to this notice.
Scope Comments
During the course of this investigation and the concurrent
investigations of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of
China (China) and Taiwan, Commerce received numerous scope comments
from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision
Memorandum \2\ and a Second Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum \3\
to address these comments. For a summary of the product coverage
comments and rebuttals submitted to the records of this investigation
and the concurrent investigations of forged steel fittings from China
and Taiwan for consideration in the final determinations, and our
accompanying discussion and analysis of them, see the Final Scope
Decision Memorandum, issued July 23, 2018, concurrent with the final
determination in the antidumping duty investigation of forged steel
fittings from Taiwan.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the
Preliminary Determinations,'' dated March 7, 2018 (Preliminary Scope
Decision Memorandum).
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Second Preliminary Scope Decision
Memorandum,'' dated May 17, 2018 (Second Preliminary Scope Decision
Memorandum).
\4\ See Memorandum, ``Forged Steel Fittings from China, Italy
and Taiwan: Final Scope Determination Decision Memorandum,'' dated
July 23, 2018 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum); see also,
Memorandum to the File, ``Placing Carbon Steel Butt Weld Pipe
Fitting Scope Information Ruling on the Record,'' dated September
19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As stated in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, Officine Nicola
Galperti
[[Page 50346]]
e Figlio S.p.A. (Galperti) and Pegasus S.R.L. (Pegasus) each claimed
that it did not produce or export to the United States forged steel
fittings from Italy during the POI.\5\ Pursuant to section 782(i) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on July 19-23, 2018, we
conducted verification of these companies' claims using standard
verification procedures, including an examination of relevant
accounting records and original source documents. As a result of the
verification, we confirmed that neither Galperti nor Pegasus produced
or sold subject merchandise during the POI.\6\ As explained further
below, mandatory respondents, M.E.G.A. S.p.A. (MEGA) and I.M.L.
Industria Meccanica Ligure S.p.A. (IML), withdrew from participation in
the investigation; therefore, we did not verify the information on the
record with respect to either company.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5.
\6\ See Memorandum, ``Verification of Officine Nicola Galperti e
Figlio S.p.A.,'' and Memorandum, ``Verification of Pegasus S.R.L.,''
both dated August 27, 2018.
\7\ See Letter from MEGA, ``Forged Steel Fittings from Italy:
Notice of M.E.G.A. S.p.A. Declining Participation in On-Site
Verification,'' dated July 2, 2018 (MEGA's Notice of Non-
Participation); and Letter from IML, ``I.M.L. S.p.A. Italy will not
participate,'' dated April 18, 2018 (IML's Notice of Non-
Participation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Adverse Facts Available
In the Preliminary Determination, we based the estimated weighted-
average dumping margins for both MEGA and IML on facts available with
an adverse inference (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a)(1),
776(a)(2)(A)-(C), and 776(b) of the Act, because those respondents
failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in responding to our
requests for information.\8\ Specifically, MEGA failed to respond fully
to our requests for information regarding its reported cost
reconciliation,\9\ and IML submitted a notice of non-participation
after failing to submit sections B, C, D, and supplemental section A
questionnaire responses.\10\ As stated in the Preliminary
Determination, we provided MEGA an opportunity to remedy its deficient
cost reporting, and upon receiving a complete supplemental
questionnaire response, we notified MEGA that we intended to verify
MEGA's information.\11\ However, MEGA subsequently filed a letter
declining participation in the intended on-site verification.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 5.
\9\ Id. at 7-8.
\10\ Id. at 8-9. See also IML's Notice of Non-Participation.
\11\ See Preliminary Determination at 83 FR 22955.
\12\ See MEGA's Notice of Non-Participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No parties filed comments on our Preliminary Determination with
respect to MEGA and IML, and there is no new information on the record
that would cause us to reverse our preliminary AFA determination. With
respect to MEGA, in the Preliminary Determination, we relied on
sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A)-(B) of the Act because MEGA had, at
that point, failed to provide an adequate cost reconciliation in
response to our requests for such information. After the Preliminary
Determination, as explained above, MEGA provided adequate responses to
our requests for information for its cost reconciliation, but then
refused to participate in verification.\13\ In light of MEGA's refusal
to participate in verification, we now determine that selection from
among the facts otherwise available is warranted under section
776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, because MEGA significantly impeded the
proceeding by refusing to participate in verification, and section
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, because MEGA provided information that could
not be verified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our finding with respect to IML remains the same as in the
Preliminary Determination. No changes have been made to the record
since the Preliminary Determination with regards to IML.
Accordingly, we continue to find that the use of an adverse
inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available
pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act is warranted with
respect to MEGA and IML, because MEGA and IML have failed to cooperate
by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with our requests
for information by withdrawing from participation in the investigation.
In selecting an appropriate AFA rate, we continue to assign to MEGA's
and IML's entries of subject merchandise the highest dumping margin
alleged in the Petition, 80.20 percent,\14\ which has been corroborated
to the extent practicable within the meaning of section 776(c) of the
Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties: Forged Steel Fittings from the People's
Republic of China, Italy, and Taiwan, Volume IV, dated October 5,
2017 (Petition); see also Letter from the petitioners, ``Response to
Second Supplemental Question,'' dated October 17, 2017 (Petition
Amendment) at Exhibit IV-18; and Memorandum, ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Forged Steel Fittings from
Italy; A-475-839,'' dated October 25, 2017 (Initiation Checklist) at
9.
\15\ See Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All-Others Rate
As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, we assigned the
simple average of the dumping margins alleged in the Petition, 49.43
percent,\16\ as the ``All-Others'' rate, in accordance with section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. We made no changes to the selection of this
rate for this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Petition and Petition Amendment; see also Preliminary
Decision Memorandum at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated weighted-
Exporter/producer average dumping
margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.E.G.A. S.p.A................................... 80.20
I.M.L. Industria Meccanica Ligure S.p.A.......... 80.20
All-Others....................................... 49.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final
determination, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of forged steel
fittings from Italy, as described in the Appendix to this notice, which
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
May 17, 2018, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the
affirmative Preliminary Determination.
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.210(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for such
entries of merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping
margin as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the respondents listed
above will be equal to the respondent-specific estimated weighted-
average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if
the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is,
then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the respondent-specific
estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer
of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other
producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated
weighted-average dumping margin.
Disclosure
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this
investigation are based on AFA. As these estimated weighted-average
[[Page 50347]]
dumping margins are based on the rates calculated in the Petition
Amendment, and because we made no changes to these rates since the
Preliminary Determination, no disclosure of calculations is necessary
for this final determination.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative
determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination
is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the
ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic
industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of
sales) for importation of forged steel fittings, no later than 45 days
after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury
does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash
deposits posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such
injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order
directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce,
antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the
``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section.
Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders
This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to an
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of return or 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 sanctionable violation.
Notification to Interested Parties
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
Dated: October 1, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is carbon and
alloy forged steel fittings, whether unfinished (commonly known as
blanks or rough forgings) or finished. Such fittings are made in a
variety of shapes including, but not limited to, elbows, tees,
crosses, laterals, couplings, reducers, caps, plugs, bushings,
unions, and outlets. Forged steel fittings are covered regardless of
end finish, whether threaded, socket-weld or other end connections.
While these fittings are generally manufactured to
specifications ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM
A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182, the scope is not limited to fittings
made to these specifications.
The term forged is an industry term used to describe a class of
products included in applicable standards, and does not reference an
exclusive manufacturing process. Forged steel fittings are not
manufactured from casting. Pursuant to the applicable
specifications, subject fittings may also be machined from bar stock
or machined from seamless pipe and tube.
All types of fittings are included in the scope regardless of
nominal pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of
nominal pipe size), pressure rating (usually, but not necessarily
expressed in pounds of pressure/PSI, e.g., 2,000 or 2M; 3,000 or 3M;
6,000 or 6M; 9,000 or 9M), wall thickness, and whether or not heat
treated.
Excluded from this scope are all fittings entirely made of
stainless steel. Also excluded are flanges, butt weld fittings, butt
weld outlets, nipples, and all fittings that have a maximum pressure
rating of 300 pounds of pressure/PSI or less.
Also excluded are fittings certified or made to the following
standards, so long as the fittings are not also manufactured to the
specifications of ASME B16.11, MSS SP-79, MSS SP-83, MSS SP-97, ASTM
A105, ASTM A350, and ASTM A182:
American Petroleum Institute (API) API 5CT, API 5L, or API
11B
Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) SAE J476, SAE J514,
SAE J516, SAE J517, SAE J518, SAE J1026, SAE J1231, SAE J1453, SAE
J1926, J2044 or SAE AS 35411
Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) certified electrical
conduit fittings
ASTM A153, A536, A576, or A865
Casing Conductor Connectors 16-42 inches in diameter made
to proprietary specifications
Military Specification (MIL) MIL-C-4109F and MIL-F-3541
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
ISO6150-B
To be excluded from the scope, products must have the
appropriate standard or pressure markings and/or accompanied by
documentation showing product compliance to the applicable standard
or pressure, e.g., ``API 5CT'' mark and/or a mill certification
report.
Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally
entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060.
They also may be entered under HTSUS 7307.92.3010, 7307.92.3030,
7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings and
specifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes;
the written description of the scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2018-21728 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P