Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China; Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-814]

Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the People's

Republic of China; Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of

Antidumping Duty Order

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

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of

Antidumping Duty Order.

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

SUMMARY: On January 3, 1994, the Department of Commerce published a

preliminary affirmative determination of circumvention of the

antidumping duty order on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings

(pipe fittings) from the People's Republic of China.

We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary affirmative determination. After our analysis of the case

and rebuttal briefs, we have determined that imports into the United

States of pipe fittings that were finished in Thailand from unfinished

pipe fittings produced in the People's Republic of China constitute

circumvention of the antidumping duty order on certain carbon steel

butt-weld pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China, within the

meaning of section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. As a

result, we determine that pipe fittings that were finished in Thailand

from unfinished pipe fittings produced in the People's Republic of

China fall within the scope of the antidumping duty order on certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from the People's Republic of

China.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery,

Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 3, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (59 FR 62) a preliminary affirmative

determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty order on certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) from the People's

Republic of China (PRC). Pursuant to this determination, the Department

instructed the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to suspend liquidation

of, and require cash deposits on, entries of the imported product as

defined in the ``Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry'' section of

this notice. In accordance with section 781(e) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the Department also notified the

International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary affirmative

determination. In response, the ITC notified the Department that

consultations between the Department and the ITC on this issue are not

necessary. See letter from ITC Chairman Don E. Newquist to Deputy

Assistant Secretary Joseph A. Spetrini, dated March 21, 1994.

The Department has now completed this inquiry in accordance with

section 781(b) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(j)(b)), and 19 CFR

353.29(f) (1993).

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

Imports covered by the antidumping duty order are shipments of

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, having an inside diameter of less

than 14 inches, imported in either finished or unfinished form. These

formed or forged pipe fittings are used to join sections in piping

systems where conditions require permanent, welded connections, as

distinguished from fittings based on other fastening methods (e.g.,

threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings). Carbon steel butt-weld pipe

fittings are currently classified under subheading 7307.93.30 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is

provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description

of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

Scope of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

The products subject to this circumvention inquiry are pipe

fittings, as described above in the ``Scope of the Antidumping Duty

Order'' section, which are exported in unfinished form from the PRC to

Thailand, where some finishing is performed.

Nature of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

As set forth in our preliminary determination, we examined whether

(1) pipe fittings finished in Thailand and sold in the United States

were of the same class or kind as those covered by the antidumping duty

order on pipe fittings from the PRC, (2) pipe fittings finished in

Thailand and exported to the United States were completed from

unfinished pipe fittings manufactured in the PRC, and (3) the

difference between the value of the unfinished pipe fittings from the

PRC and the finished pipe fittings sold in the United States was small,

as required by section 781(b)(1) of the Tariff Act.

In reaching a conclusion as to whether the difference in value was

small, we based our analysis of the difference in the value on (1) a

quantitative analysis of the value of the finishing process in

Thailand, and (2) a qualitative analysis of the nature of the

processing performed in Thailand, and the level of investment in

Thailand. Further, in determining whether to include merchandise

assembled or completed in Thailand within the order, we analyzed

changes in the pattern of trade, the relationship between the Chinese

manufacturer and the Thai finisher, and changes in volume of imports of

unfinished pipe fittings into Thailand, pursuant to section 781(b)(2)

of the Tariff Act. (See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

from the People's Republic of China; Affirmative Preliminary

Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 59 FR 62

(January 3, 1994).)

Final Calculation of Difference in Value

As in our preliminary determination, we calculated the difference

in value percentage by dividing the value added in Thailand by the

value of the completed merchandise. In our final analysis, we used the

net selling price of pipe fittings to the United States to represent

the value of the completed merchandise. We deducted freight and

insurance to derive the net selling price of the completed merchandise.

We revised the cost of manufacturing used to determine the value

added in Thailand in order to correct for certain clerical errors found

by the Department or noted by Awaji Sangyo (Thailand) (AST) at

verification. We also adjusted the cost of manufacturing for labor

bonus expenses submitted at the beginning of verification. In addition,

we excluded from our calculation of the difference in value certain

pipe fittings which were found not to be of Chinese origin. (See March

21, 1994 analysis memo from the case analyst to the file.)

We found that the value added in Thailand is 18 percent of the

value of the completed merchandise. (Since the precise figure is

business proprietary, the stated percentage is within a range of plus

or minus 10 percent.) See March 21, 1994 analysis memorandum from the

case analyst to the file. In order to determine whether 18 percent is

``small'' within the meaning of the Tariff Act, we examined the nature

of the processing performed in Thailand and the level of investment in

Thailand. (See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the

People's Republic of China; Affirmative Preliminary Determination of

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 59 FR 62.) As stated in the

preliminary determination, we have determined that the finishing

operations performed to finish unfinished tees provide limited value to

the finished tee relative to the production process used to manufacture

the unfinished tee. Moreover, the level of investment required to

produce unfinished tees is significant when compared to that required

to finish the unfinished tee. Accordingly, we determine that the

calculated difference in value percentage is ``small'' within the

meaning of section 781(b) of the Tariff Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary

affirmative determination of circumvention on pipe fittings from the

PRC. We received a case brief from the respondent, AST, and a rebuttal

brief from the petitioner, the U.S. Fittings Group (an ad hoc trade

association of domestic producers of pipe fittings currently consisting

of: Hackney, Inc.; Ladish Company, Inc.; L.A. Boiler Works, Inc.; Mill

Iron Works, Inc.; Steel Forgings, Inc.; and Tube Forgings of America,

Inc.). We held a public hearing on March 8, 1994. All comments and

rebuttal arguments properly raised by the parties to the proceeding are

discussed below.

Comment 1: AST asserts that at the time it considered converting

tees, it relied upon U.S. customs law, under which converting

unfinished fittings into completed form has been held to constitute

``substantial transformation'' of the unfinished product and to confer

a new country of origin. AST states that the decision to convert tees

preceded the Chinese antidumping petition and that after the

antidumping order on Chinese pipe fittings AST continued to rely on the

Customs ruling.

AST cites the Customs case Midwood Industries, Inc. v. United

States, 313 F. Supp. 951 (Cust. Ct. 1970). In Midwood Industries, the

Customs Court held that the manufacturing processes applied to

unfinished fittings to convert them to finished goods constituted a

``transformation of such imported articles into different articles

having a new name, character and use.'' 313 F. Supp. at 957. Although

AST recognizes that the Department's definition of scope is not bound

by U.S. Customs law, AST believes the Department should avoid creating

tension and confusion between Commerce and Customs laws.

Department's Position: As AST states, our definitions of scope and

country of origin are not bound by U.S. customs law. Under section

781(b) of the Tariff Act, the Department must examine specific criteria

to determine whether merchandise circumvents an antidumping order, and

is bound by those criteria in making its determination. In addition,

the Court of International Trade (CIT) has held that the Department is

not bound by Customs classification determinations. See Diversified

Products v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 887 (CIT 1983); and Royal

Business Machines v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 1007, 1014 (CIT 1980).

As to AST's argument that the decision to convert tees preceded the

antidumping petition on pipe fittings from China, there is no

requirement in the statute or regulations that completion or assembly

in a third country begin only after the antidumping order is issued in

order to include pipe fittings finished in Thailand.

Comment 2: AST states that its U.S. exports for the entire class or

kind of merchandise, including elbows and reducers, increased

significantly after the Thai and Chinese orders, citing Exhibit 6 of

its November 23, 1993 response. AST contends that the Department's

analysis of the pattern of trade failed to consider that AST's exports

to the United States after the Thai order increased naturally because

AST was excluded from the Thai order and its exports were therefore

free from cash deposits, while Chinese companies and other Thai

companies stopped exporting to the United States because their imports

were subject to cash deposits. AST argues that the Department focused

exclusively on the mathematical calculation in considering the pattern

of trade, without considering the rational commercial reasons for the

increase in exports.

AST also argues that the Department's calculation of the increase

in AST's exports is skewed because it was based on kilograms rather

than on pieces. AST states that the large differences in weight among

the various sizes of fittings does not yield a meaningful comparison of

export volumes. AST's product mix shifted to larger pieces after the

order, with a greater weight per fitting ratio. AST states that the

increase in exports, as measured in pieces, is ``a far cry from

increase levels in prior cases where the Department has found

circumvention to exist,'' citing Color Picture Tubes from Canada,

Japan, Korea, and Singapore; Negative Preliminary Determination, 55 FR

52066 (December 19, 1990) and Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin

from Italy; Affirmative Preliminary Determination, 57 FR 43218

(September 18, 1992).

Department's Position: We recognize that an antidumping duty order

will sometimes precipitate a shift in trading patterns, with low-rate

or excluded companies gaining some of the market lost by companies with

higher dumping cash deposit rates. Such a shift does not in and of

itself mean that circumvention has occurred. Rather, we investigate the

causes and nature of the shift in our determination of whether

circumvention has occurred. For example, increased capacity utilization

could be a normal commercial response of an excluded company to an

antidumping duty order. However, if the excluded company's increased

exports are the result of transmitting subject merchandise from another

company covered by an order, we might conclude that this pattern of

trade supports a finding of circumvention. In this case, we found that

there was a significant increase in tees finished from unfinished

Chinese tees and exported to the United States. Therefore, the nature

of the shift in the pattern of trade suggests that it is the result of

circumvention.

Furthermore, AST's statement that its exports to the United States

of the entire class or kind of merchandise increased after the order

cannot be substantiated by Exhibit 6 of the November 23, 1993 response.

This exhibit gives only annual totals for exports of all pipe fittings

to the United States. We cannot make a reasonable comparison of the

period after the order, July 1992 through September 1993, with the

comparable period before the order, May 1991 through June 1992, on the

basis of annual figures. For example, we have no way of knowing what

portion of the 1992 exports occurred before the July 6, 1992

antidumping order, and what portion occurred after the antidumping

order. Also, we would not know what portion of the 1991 annual exports

occurred during May through December 1991.

We disagree with AST's assertion that kilograms do not provide a

reasonable measurement of its volume of exports of pipe fittings to the

United States and of the extent to which AST's exports have increased

since the issuance of the order. In this case, the Department has

determined that kilograms constitute a reasonable measure of volume.

U.S. Customs and the Thai government use kilograms as their measure of

volume in keeping their trade statistics, suggesting that kilograms is

a reasonable measure. In addition, AST allocates many of the its

expenses on a kilogram basis rather than pieces.

The record shows that AST's product mix shifted from smaller to

larger pipe fittings after the issuance of the order. The Department

has concluded that kilograms more accurately reflect the shift in AST's

exports from smaller to larger pipe fittings. Measuring in kilograms

takes into account the large raw material differences, as well as value

differences, among various sizes of pipe fittings. Measuring in pieces

masks increases in size, weight, and value of pipe fittings exports.

Moreover, regardless which unit of measure, i.e., pieces or kilograms,

is used, the volume of exports to the United States has increased

significantly. AST's comparison of the difference in exports in this

inquiry and Color Picture Tubes from Canada, Japan, Korea, and

Singapore; Negative Preliminary Determination, 55 FR 52066 and Granular

Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy, 57 43218 (PTFE) is mistaken.

In accordance with the statute, the Department's analyses in

circumvention inquiries are conducted on a case by case basis, and it

may not be appropriate to compare the facts of one case to those of

another. For instance, the fact that the exports in PTFE resin

increased nearly four-fold does not indicate that a similar increase

must be found in a different case in order to justify an affirmative

circumvention determination.

Comment 3: AST states that the Department considers the likelihood

of circumvention to be greater if the manufacturer of the unfinished

merchandise is related to the third country assembler. AST also states

that the Department has considered the related-party factor a critical

element in its evaluation in past circumvention inquires, citing Color

Picture Tubes from Canada, Japan, Korea and Singapore; Negative Final

Circumvention Determination, 56 FR 9667 (March 7, 1991). AST urges the

Department to take this factor into account in its analysis.

Department's Position: While the Department has noted that it is

``more likely'' for related parties to engage in circumvention

activity, a relationship between the Chinese manufacturer and Thai

converter/exporter is not a necessary condition for finding

circumvention. Relationship among parties is not a mandatory criterion,

but a qualitative ``factor to consider'' under 19 CFR 353.29(f)(2). Not

all of the qualitative factors have to indicate circumvention in order

for the Department to make an affirmative circumvention determination.

To do so would run counter to the statute, which does not require that

all three factors be present to find circumvention. Indeed, if all

three had to be met, they would be mandatory criteria, such as those in

section 781(b)(1), not ``factors to consider,'' and there would be no

need to list them separately in 781(b)(2). It is possible for

circumvention to occur between unrelated companies.

In addition, the factor of relationship was not a ``key'' or

``critical'' factor in the circumvention inquiries on color picture

tubes (CPTs). On the contrary, in the CPT circumvention inquiries the

Department specifically investigated unrelated companies, and made its

negative determinations on other grounds. (See Color Picture Tubes from

Canada, Japan, Korea and Singapore, Negative Final Circumvention

Determination, 56 FR 9667.) Furthermore, the Department found

circumvention between unrelated parties in Brass Sheet and Strip from

Canada, Final Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 33610.

Comment 4: AST argues that the Department erroneously concluded

that the increase in exports from Shenzhen Fittings Manufacturing

Factory (Shenzhen Factory) in the PRC to Thailand corresponds to the

increase in exports of tees from AST to the United States. AST states

that the majority of the number of pieces of unfinished tees imported

from China were shipped to another Thai importer. AST also states that

the number of pieces of unfinished Chinese tees it imported declined

after the order, and therefore any increase in the total number of

pieces imported into Thailand are unrelated to the increase in AST's

finished tees exports to the United States. Moreover, AST argues that

the Department should use data from the 18 months prior to the

antidumping order in its analysis, since the record contains export

data from January 1991 to August 1993.

Department's Position: The record shows that imports of unfinished

pipe fittings from Shenzhen Factory to AST declined only if one uses

pieces, rather than kilograms, and compares the 18-month period before

the issuance of the order to the 14-month period after the order, as

AST has done. This comparison conceals the nature of the volume of

imports and is not a reasonable comparison of time periods. The

antidumping order was issued on July 6, 1992. Because we initiated a

circumvention inquiry and issued circumvention questionnaires in

September 1993, we gathered post-order data on imports for the period

July 1992 through September 1993, a 14-month period. Therefore, we

compared that data with import data for the 14 months prior to the

antidumping order, that is, for the period May 1, 1991 through June 30,

1992. It would be unreasonable to compare an 18-month period to a 14-

month period, as AST advocates. In addition, AST has relied on pieces

rather than kilograms in its argument. We believe that kilograms are a

better measure of the volume of trade than are pieces. See our response

to Comment 2, above. Regardless of the unit of measure, there is a

clear increase of imports of pipe fittings to Thailand, as well as an

increase to AST, after the issuance of the antidumping duty order, when

equal time periods are compared. See March 21, 1994 analysis memo from

the case analyst to the file.

Comment 5: AST asserts that, in its calculation of the difference

in value, the Department's use of CIF selling prices for the value of

the completed merchandise was in error. (The Department determined the

difference in value by dividing Thai finishing costs by the value of

the completed merchandise sold in the United States.) The CIF price

included freight and insurance costs, while the Thai finishing cost

data did not include these costs. Therefore, AST contends, the use of

CIF selling prices dilutes the percentage of Thai completion. AST

argues that this skews the comparison of unfinished and finished

merchandise values, increasing the probability that the value added by

Thai finishing will be deemed ``small.'' AST urges the Department to

use ex-factory prices as the value of the completed merchandise.

AST further states that the Department has consistently used ex-

factory selling prices as the value of the completed merchandise in

prior circumvention inquiries and has no reason to divert from that

practice now.

Department's Position: We agree with AST. For the final

determination, we have adjusted the gross CIF selling price by

deducting the freight and insurance expenses to arrive at the net

selling price (ex-factory) of the completed merchandise. We find that

the recalculated difference in value is still small. (See March 21,

1994 analysis memo from the case analyst to the file.)

Comment 6: AST argues that the Department should allocate to AST's

cost of manufacturing for pipe fittings a portion of the selling,

general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred by the Butt-Weld

Division of Awaji Sangyo K.K. (ASK), which is AST's parent company in

Japan. ASK's Butt-Weld Division sells AST's pipe fittings in the

Japanese domestic market. AST notes that the Department included a

portion of the SG&A expenses of ASK's Tokyo office, which handles AST's

export sales, in determining the value of the finishing processes in

Thailand.

Department's Position: We disagree with AST that a portion of ASK's

Butt-Weld Division's SG&A should be included in determining the value

of the finishing processes in Thailand for merchandise exported to the

United States. The record shows that all of the SG&A expenses in Japan

that related to export sales of AST's pipe fittings were incurred at

the Tokyo office. See November 23, 1993 AST response at 10. Therefore,

we allocated a portion of the total Tokyo office SG&A expenses to AST's

pipe fittings subject to this inquiry. However, the Butt-Weld

Division's SG&A expenses were incurred only for selling AST's Thai-

manufactured pipe fittings in the Japanese domestic market. See

November 23, 1993 AST response at 10. Expenses incurred for ASK's

Japanese domestic sales should not be allocated to the sales of AST's

pipe fittings in the United States.

Comment 7: AST argues that the stated purpose of the anti-

circumvention law is to prevent evasion of an antidumping duty order

duty or finding, not to penalize foreign producers for their past

action. AST states that it has ceased importing Chinese tees since

March 1993 and will soon begin commercial production of tees in an

integrated process from steel pipe, making it unnecessary to import

unfinished tees from any source. Further, AST states that it will not

be importing unfinished tees from China, since its Chinese supplier has

ceased operation. AST argues that the foregoing facts preclude any

reasons for AST's evasion of the Chinese order in the future and

nullifies the necessity for the importer certification program.

Department's Position: We agree with AST that the purpose of the

anti-circumvention law is to prevent evasion of antidumping duty orders

and findings, and it is for this reason that we have instituted the

import certification program. When we have determined that

circumvention has occurred, we must take action to prevent continuing

circumvention. In this case, the statutory and regulatory provisions

for a finding of circumvention have been met. In addition, we have

designed our certification requirement in such a way that entries of

pipe fittings imported into the United States from Thailand will not be

suspended if the importer can certify that they were not produced from

unfinished Chinese pipe fittings. Thus, entries of pipe fittings

produced by AST in an integrated process from steel pipe will not be

subject to suspension, as long as the importer provides the appropriate

certification.

We also note that AST's statement that it will have no reason to

evade the Chinese order in the future does not assure us that there

will not be continued circumvention of the order. Our verification at

AST revealed that AST had unfinished Chinese tees remaining in its

inventory at the end of 1993. See February 25, 1994 AST verification

report. Absent a finding of circumvention, AST could finish these pipe

fittings and export them to the United States free of antidumping

duties. AST could also resume finishing of Chinese unfinished tees to

supplement its tee production. In order to prevent circumvention, we

must (1) order the suspension of entries of pipe fittings from AST,

absent certification that such pipe fittings have not been produced

from unfinished Chinese pipe fittings, and (2) require such

certification for imports from all Thai exporters, so that the

appropriate antidumping duties can ultimately be collected.

Comment 8: Petitioner states in its rebuttal brief that AST

implicitly claimed that the Department has no basis to institute an

anti-circumvention inquiry with respect to the antidumping duty order

on pipe fittings from Japan. According to petitioner's account of AST's

argument, AST bases this assertion on its statement that unfinished

pipe fittings are not covered by the Japanese order.

Petitioner claims that there is enough evidence on the public

record in the PRC anti-circumvention inquiry for the Department to

institute an anti-circumvention inquiry on the Japanese order.

Department's Position: The question of possible circumvention of

the Japanese order on pipe fittings is not germane to the issue of

whether the PRC order on pipe fittings has been circumvented.

Furthermore, if petitioner believes that there is evidence that the

order on pipe fittings from Japan is being circumvented, sufficient to

warrant an anti-circumvention inquiry, then petitioner should request

that the Department conduct such an inquiry, in accordance with CFR

353.29(b). We note that petitioner filed such a request with the

Department on March 22, 1994.

Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention

After consideration of the factors discussed above, we have

determined that circumvention of the antidumping duty order on pipe

fittings from the PRC has occurred within the meaning of section 781(b)

of the Tariff Act. We base this determination on the statutory

criteria. First, the items completed in Thailand and sold to the United

States are of the same class or kind of merchandise as that covered by

the order, and are completed from merchandise produced in the PRC and

covered by the order. Second, the difference in value between the

unfinished pipe fittings sold to Thailand and the value of the finished

pipe fittings exported to the United States is small. We note that our

determination of ``small'' in this case is not necessarily synonymous

with the determination of ``small'' that the Department has used in the

past or that the Department will use in future anti-circumvention

inquiries, because Congress has directed us to make such determinations

on a case-by-case basis. Further, we find that the pattern of trade and

level of imports into Thailand indicate a finding of circumvention of

the antidumping duty order. Based on the record for this inquiry, we

also find that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of the

antidumping duty order. To this end, a finding of circumvention for a

product within a class or kind indicates that the criteria for finding

circumvention are met by and, therefore, apply to all manufacturers/

exporters of the class or kind of merchandise (i.e., pipe fittings)

subject to the certification requirements described below.

This does not preclude a Thai manufacturer from making an

affirmative showing that its merchandise, or a portion thereof, does

not meet the criteria for finding circumvention. Such a showing must be

made on an analysis that follows, as closely as possible, the analysis

made in the affirmative circumvention determination.

Requirement of Certification

Considered within the scope of the antidumping duty order on pipe

fittings from the PRC are all imports from all producers into the

United States of pipe fittings from Thailand, as defined in the ``Scope

of the Anti-Circumvention Inquiry'' section of this notice, unless

accompanied by a certificate stating that such pipe fittings have not

been produced from unfinished Chinese pipe fittings.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.29(j)(2), we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of

pipe fittings from Thailand. The merchandise subject to suspension of

liquidation is pipe fittings, as defined in the ``Scope of the Anti-

Circumvention Inquiry'' section of this notice, that are entered or

withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 3, 1994,

the date of publication of the preliminary affirmative circumvention

determination in the Federal Register. (We note that entries of pipe

fittings from Thailand, with the exception of AST's pipe fittings, are

currently being suspended pursuant to the antidumping duty order on

pipe fittings from Thailand (57 FR 29702, July 6, 1992).) For all such

imports which are accompanied by a certificate stating that such pipe

fittings have not been produced from unfinished Chinese pipe fittings,

the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond in the amount of the company-specific rate for the Thai

manufacturer/exporter, or, if there is no company-specific rate for the

Thai manufacturer or exporter, the ``All Others'' rate for pipe

fittings from Thailand. For all such imports which are accompanied by a

certificate stating that the merchandise was manufactured using Chinese

unfinished pipe fittings and the name of the manufacturer of the

Chinese unfinished pipe fittings, the U.S. Customs Service shall

require a cash deposit or posting of a bond in the amount of the

company-specific rate of the manufacturer of the Chinese unfinished

pipe fittings. For all such imports which are accompanied by a

certificate stating that such pipe fittings have been produced from

unfinished Chinese pipe fittings, but do not provide the specific

Chinese manufacturer, the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash

deposit or posting of a bond in the amount of the highest rate for pipe

fittings from the PRC. For all other imports of pipe fittings from

Thailand which are accompanied by an inadequate certificate, or no

certificate, the U.S. Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or

posting of a bond in an amount based on the higher of (1) the highest

rate for any manufacturer/exporter of pipe fittings from the PRC, or

(2) the rate for the Thai manufacturer/exporter, or, if there is no

company-specific rate for the Thai manufacturer or exporter, the ``All

Others'' rate for pipe fittings from Thailand.

This suspension of liquidation shall remain in effect until further

notice.

Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the

date of publication of this notice.

This final affirmative determination of circumvention is in

accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1677j(b))

and 19 CFR 353.29(f).

Dated: March 25, 1994.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-7715 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P