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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-122-503]

Certain Iron Construction Castings From Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration/International Trade Administration

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 10, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results

of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on iron

construction castings from Canada. The review covered four

manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise to the United

States during the period March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992. Based

on our analysis of the comments received, the dumping margins for these

four companies have not changed from the margins presented in the

preliminary results. For the final results we continue to find that 14

[[Page 9010]] additional companies are related to one of the

respondents in this review and have, therefore, continued to collapse

these companies and assign a single rate to the entire entity.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,

Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and

Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-

6312/3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 10, 1994, the Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of an administrative review (59 FR

40866) of the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from

Canada (51 FR 17220). The Department has now completed this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The Department completed its

administrative review of the order on Canadian castings for the next

annual period, March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993, on May 17,

1994.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are shipments of certain iron

construction castings, 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, and other valves, or water or gas meters, classifiable as light

casting under HTS item numbers 8306.29.0000 and 8310.00.0000. The HTS

item numbers are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes

only. The written description remains dispositive.

This review covers sales of certain Canadian iron construction

castings by Fonderie LaPerle (LaPerle), Penticton Foundry, Ltd.

(Penticton), Titan Foundry, Ltd. (Titan), and Associated Foundry

(Associated), during the period March 1, 1991 through February 29,

1992.

Related Parties

In addition, based on our analysis, we have found that 14 other

companies, for which we did not initiate an administrative review, were

related to LaPerle during the period of review. (For more information,

see the analysis memorandum for the preliminary results.) We have

determined, based on the best information available (BIA), that these

related companies should be collapsed with LaPerle and receive a single

assessment rate for this review period.

On May 17, 1994, we issued final results of review for the period

1992/1993. Since we assigned cash deposit rates to 12 of the 14 related

companies in that review, these final results affect only the two

remaining companies.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results as provided for in section 353.38 of the

Department's regulations. We received comments from LaPerle and

rebuttal comments from the Municipal Castings Fair Trade Council,

including its individually named members (petitioner).

Comment 1: LaPerle commented that the Department should not have

resorted to BIA since LaPerle cooperated fully with the Department and

responded to all requests for information. It argues that it responded

fully to all seven requests for information from the Department.

LaPerle states that, despite the Department's decision to collapse

LaPerle and all parties to which it is either directly or indirectly

related, LaPerle is an autonomous operation. LaPerle argues that the

other companies also operate autonomously, especially, according to

LaPerle, considering that two of these companies are located at too

great a distance to be involved with LaPerle's operations. LaPerle

asserts that the remaining companies either did not produce or did not

sell such or similar merchandise or did not export to the United

States.

LaPerle further contends that this situation is like that in Gray

Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan (58 FR 48826, 1993), where the

Department stated: ``The use of BIA was not warranted in a situation

where, as here, there are sufficient home market sales of comparable

merchandise to unrelated customers to calculate an FMV for every month

of the review period.''

In its rebuttal comments the petitioner asserts that the

fundamental error in LaPerle's arguments is its assertion that the

submission of questionnaire responses for itself alone constitutes

cooperation. By ignoring the Department's request for a consolidated

response for itself and its related entities, petitioner agrees with

the Department's determination that LaPerle has been uncooperative.

Department's Position: In conducting this review, we received

responses from only one company, which was LaPerle. Based on our

analysis of this response, we determined in the preliminary results

that LaPerle was not independent, but was, in fact, one of many

components in a single business entity. In doing so, we determined that

LaPerle and its related entities were sufficiently related to permit

the possibility of price manipulation. As we stated in Cellular Mobile

Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan (54 FR 48011, 1989), our

determination to collapse related parties into a single respondent

entity is not ``based solely on the extent of their financial

relationship.''

The other factors we relied upon in collapsing related companies

are as follows: (1) The level of common ownership; (2) interlocking

officers or directors (e.g., whether managerial employees or board

members of one company sit on the board(s) of directors of the other

related part(ies)); (3) the existence of production facilities for

similar or identical products that would not require retooling either

plant's facilities to implement a decision to restructure either

company's manufacturing priorities; and (4) whether the operations of

the companies are intertwined (e.g., pricing decisions, sharing of

facilities or employees; transactions between the companies). See,

e.g., Certain Granite Products from Spain, 53 FR 24335 (1988); Certain

Granite Products from Italy, 53 FR 27187 (1988); Steel Wheels from

Brazil, 54 FR 8780 (1989); 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 (1993). The Department's use of these

factors was upheld by the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Nihon

Cement Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States and The Ad Hoc Committee of

Southern California Producers of Gray Portland Cement, et al., Slip Op.

93-80 (CIT 1993). Based on an analysis of all four criteria, the

Department has determined that the facts warrant collapsing the related

entities. For further discussion of the Department's application of

these factors in this review, see the analysis memorandum for the

preliminary results.

In conducting our analysis of the related-party issue in this

review, we issued six supplemental questionnaires [[Page 9011]] and

granted deadline extensions. In spite of this, LaPerle did not provide

the Department with enough information to support its position that the

related parties should not be collapsed. In addition, it did not

consolidate all information for the respondent entity, including

information for its related home market firms as outlined in our

questionnaire. Therefore, we have determined that LaPerle significantly

impeded the proceeding and, in accordance with section 776(c) of the

Tariff Act, we have based our final results regarding LaPerle and its

related entities on BIA.

Comment 2: LaPerle states that if the Department continues to use

BIA for the final results of review, it should use a second-tier BIA

rate since LaPerle was a cooperative respondent. To support its

argument LaPerle refers to Stainless Steel Wire Rods from Brazil (58 FR

68862, 1993), where the Department applied a less adverse rate because

the respondent was cooperative.

The petitioner in its rebuttal comments states that the Department

should reject this claim for the same reason as it did in the 1992-93

review. The petitioner asserts that, as in that review, absent a

consolidated response from LaPerle and its related entities, the

Department would not be able to reach a determination of the amount of

dumping engaged in by LaPerle and its related concerns, and thus that

LaPerle did not fully cooperate with the Department.

Department's Position: Despite LaPerle's responses, the respondent

entity's response was inadequate. Therefore, we have concluded that the

respondent entity ``refused to cooperate * * * or otherwise

significantly impeded'' the review. (See Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v.

United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, the

application of first-tier BIA is appropriate because LaPerle impeded

the proceeding by failing to provide to the Department the information

necessary to conduct the review and by failing to provide support for

its position that LaPerle should not be collapsed with the 14 other

companies during the period of review.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following

weighted-average margins exist, and have been applied based on

relationship and/or failure to respond, for the period March 1, 1991

through February 29, 1992:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter percent

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

LaPerle........................................................ 9.80

Penticton...................................................... 9.80

Titan.......................................................... 9.80

Associated..................................................... 9.80

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

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.

Because the Department has already completed the review for the

period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993, the cash deposit

requirement for merchandise subject to the order will not be changed by

these final results, except in the case of the two companies related to

LaPerle that were not assigned cash deposit rates in the review

covering the next annual period. For these two companies, the

Department will instruct Customs to collect cash deposits at the rate

applicable to LaPerle in this 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 return or destruction 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22.

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-3962 Filed 2-15-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P