Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-588-702]

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings From

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration/

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On January 6, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of review of the

antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe and tube

fittings (SSPFs) from Japan (59 FR 740). The review covers one

manufacturer/exporter, Benkan Corporation (Benkan), and the period

March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our analysis of comments received, the

final results remain unchanged from the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Genovese or Michael Heaney,

Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-

5254.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 29, 1993, the petitioner, Flowline Division of Markovitz

Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline), requested that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSPFs from Japan

for Benkan. The Department initiated the review on May 6, 1993 (58 FR

26960), covering the period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.

On January 6, 1994, the Department published the preliminary results of

review of the antidumping duty order on SSPFs from Japan (59 FR 740).

The Department has now completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review include certain stainless steel

butt-weld pipe and tube fittings. These fittings are used in piping

systems for chemical plants, pharmaceutical plants, food processing

facilities, waste treatment facilities, semiconductor equipment

applications, nuclear power plants and other areas.

This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized

Tariff Schedules (HTS) item number 7307.23.0000. The HTS item number is

provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written product

description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received comments from the petitioner,

Flowline.

Comment 1: Flowline argues that Benkan's date of sale methodology,

which is based on the invoice date, does not provide an accurate,

reasonable method for determining the date that price and quantity are

set. Petitioner contends that since prices are agreed to over the

telephone prior to the order being placed, the date of sale should be

the date that a customer places an order (i.e., the date that the order

receipt slip is generated), rather than the invoice date, which is also

the shipment date.

Department's Position: We disagree with Flowline. The Department

has used the invoice date provided by Benkan as the date of sale

because the invoice represents the first document which systematically

records agreement as to prices and quantities. Order receipt slips are

neither systematically generated nor comprehensive enough for these

purposes. Thus, the invoice date represents an accurate, reasonable,

verifiable, consistent methodology to determine the date of sale.

Moreover, this is consistent with the position that we have taken

in past cases where determination of the date of sale methodology was

at issue (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Rolling

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al. (AFBs) (58 FR 39729,

39783; July 26, 1993)).

Comment 2: Flowline asserts that Benkan should be required to

provide level-of-trade (LOT) information since Benkan sells to

different categories of customers in the home market and in the U.S.

market. Flowline refers to the Department's Policy Bulletin (92/1, July

29, 1992) to argue that Benkan has failed to demonstrate that no

correlation exists between prices and LOT. Additionally, Flowline

claims that Benkan has only shown that there is no significant

correlation between selling expenses and LOT, as opposed to no

correlation between prices and LOT.

Department's Position: The Department disagrees with Flowline.

There is no evidence on the record to suggest that Benkan's prices vary

based on the customer category. Moreover, Flowline has misinterpreted

Department policy by improperly assuming that Benkan has the burden of

demonstrating that prices are not affected by LOT; Flowline has

provided no evidence to contradict Benkan's assertion that prices are

not affected by LOT.

Final Results of Review

Based on our analysis of the comments received we have not changed

the final results from those presented in the preliminary results of

review. Accordingly, we have determined that a final margin of 8.06

percent exists for Benkan for the period March 1, 1992 through February

28, 1993.

The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between United States price and foreign market value may vary from the

percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) the cash deposit rate for Benkan will be 8.06 percent; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this

review but covered in a previous review or the original less-than-fair-

value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the rate published in the most recent final results or determination

for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific

rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, earlier

reviews, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the

cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in these final results of review, earlier reviews, or the

original investigation, whichever is the most recent; and (4) the ``all

others'' rate will be 49.31 percent, as explained below.

On May 25, 1993, the CIT, in Floral Trade Council v. United States,

Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul Corporation 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 original ``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. Accordingly, the cash deposit rate for any

future entries from all other manufacturers or exporters, who are not

covered in this or prior administrative reviews and who are unrelated

to the reviewed firms or any previously reviewed firm, will be the

``all others'' rate established in the original LTFB investigation,

which is 49.31 percent.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final 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.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of

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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: March 9, 1994.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-6125 Filed 3-15-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M