Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Iron Construction Castings From Canada

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-122-503]

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;

Iron Construction Castings From Canada

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Municipal Castings Fair Trade

Council and its individually-named members (petitioner), the Department

of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from Canada.

The review covers 11 manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject

merchandise to the United States during the period March 1, 1992,

through February 28, 1993. For these preliminary results, we applied

best information available (BIA) for 10 of the manufacturers/exporters.

The review indicates the existence of dumping margins during the

period.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 3, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Raisner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230,

telephone: (202) 482-3518.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 5, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register

(51 FR 17220) the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings

from Canada. The petitioner requested in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a) that we conduct an administrative review. We published the

notice of initiation on May 6, 1993 (58 FR 26960). The Department has

now conducted that administrative review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain iron

construction castings from Canada, limited to manhole covers, rings,

and frames, catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames

used for drainage or access purposes for public utility, water, and

sanitary systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050 and to

valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase

water, gas, or other valves, or water and gas meters, classifiable as

light castings under HTS item numbers 8306.29.0000 and 8310.00.0000.

The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes

only. The written description remains dispositive.

This review covers sales of certain Canadian iron construction

castings by Associated Foundry Ltd., Bibby Foundry Ltd., Bibby

Waterworks Inc., Dobney Foundry Ltd., Fonderie Bibby St. Croix, LaPerle

Foundry Division (LaPerle), McCoy Foundry Company, Penticton Foundry

Ltd., Titan Foundry Ltd., Titan Supply Ltd., and Trojan Industries,

Inc., during the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.

Analysis

We received only one questionnaire response, and that was from

LaPerle. Based on our analysis of this response, we have determined

that LaPerle is related to other respondents in this review. LaPerle

and its related entities meet all five criteria, in addition to

ownership, that the Department considers in determining whether to

collapse related parties, as laid out in Certain Granite Products for

Spain, 53 FR 24335, 1988; Certain Granite Products for Italy 53 FR

27187, 1988; Steel Wheels from Brazil, 54 FR 8780, 1989; Cellular

Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan, 54 FR 48011, 1989; and

Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products,

and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Canada, 58 FR 37099

(July 9, 1993). The five criteria, in addition to ownership, are as

follows:

Interlocking boards of directors;

Similar production processes, facilities or equipment so

as to facilitate shifting of production between facilities;

Do not operate as separate and distinct entities;

Share of marketing and sales information or offices; and

Involvement in the pricing or production decisions of the

other entity.

In conducting our analysis of related parties in this review, we

issued two supplemental questionnaires and granted extensions for

several of the responses. In spite of this, LaPerle did not provide us

with enough information to adequately support its position as an

independent entity. In addition, it did not consolidate all information

for itself, including information for its U.S. affiliate(s) and related

home market or third country firms whose information would be used in

this review, as outlined in our questionnaire. Therefore, we have

determined that LaPerle significantly impeded the proceedings. LaPerle

was deemed uncooperative and, in accordance with section 776(c) of the

Tariff Act, we applied BIA to LaPerle and its related parties.

Best Information Available

In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we have used

BIA in cases where a party refused or was unable to produce information

requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise

significantly impeded these proceedings. The Department generally uses

a two-tiered approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative

respondents or respondents who substantially impede the proceedings

(first tier), the Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate

for any company from the original investigation or prior administrative

review or (2) the highest rate found in the current review for any

company. For respondents which attempt to cooperate (second tier), the

Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to

the firm for the subject merchandise or (2) the highest calculated rate

in the current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings (Other

than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58

FR 39729, July 26, 1993). For parties refusing to respond or parties

who substantially impeded the administrative review, the first-tier BIA

rate we applied in these preliminary results is 9.9 percent, which is

the highest of the rates found for any firm in the original

investigation (see Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Amendment to

Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Amendment to

Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 34110, September 25, 1986).

For more information on these BIA applications to the above

companies, see the analysis memorandum.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that margins

exist for the period March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993, as

follows:

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

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin

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

Associated Foundry Ltd.............................. 9.9

Bibby Foundry Ltd................................... 9.9

Bibby Waterworks Inc................................ 9.9

Dobney Foundry Ltd.................................. 9.9

Fonderie Bibby St. Croix............................ 9.9

LaPerle Foundry, Inc................................ 9.9

McCoy Foundry Company............................... \1\7.5

Penticton Foundry Ltd............................... 9.9

Titan Foundry Ltd................................... 9.9

Titan Supply Ltd.................................... 9.9

Trojan Industries, Inc.............................. 9.9

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

\1\No shipments during the period; since there was no prior review of

this company, we assigned the all other rate from the less-than-fair-

value (LTFV) investigation.

Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date

of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days

of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after

the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case

briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted

no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs

and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those

comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the

Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective,

upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative

review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada that

are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of this notice, as provided by section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those

established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the

cash deposit rate will continue to be their company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review or the original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for

the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)

if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this

or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 7.5 percent,

which is the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV investigation,

as discussed below.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul

Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-

83, decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a

company, it can only be changed through an administrative review. The

Department has determined that in order to implement these decisions,

it is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV

investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical

errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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.

These administrative review and this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR

353.22(c).

Dated: December 23, 1993.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 93-32070 Filed 12-30-93; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M