Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-533-809]

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from one respondent, the Department

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

the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges

(flanges) from India. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of

the subject merchandise to the United States for the period February 9,

1994 through January 31, 1995.

We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made

below the normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted

in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S.

Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between

the United States price (USP) and the NV. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument

(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration,

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

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 9, 1994, the Department published in the Federal

Register (59

[[Page 14074]]

FR 5994) the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel

flanges from India. On January 12, 1995, the Department published in

the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review'' of this antidumping duty order for the period

of February 9, 1994 through January 31, 1995 (60 FR 6524). We received

a timely request for review from the respondent, Akai Impex, Ltd.

(Akai). On February 15, 1995, the Department initiated a review of Akai

(60 FR 8629). The period of review (POR) is February 9, 1994 through

January 31, 1995.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this order are certain forged stainless

steel flanges both finished and not-finished, generally manufactured to

specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316,

and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are

weld neck, used for butt-weld line connection, threaded, used for

threaded line connections, slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/

butt-weld line connections, socket weld, used to fit pipe into a

machined recession, and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of

the flanges with the scope range generally from one to six inches;

however, all sizes of the above described merchandise are included in

the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast

stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are

manufactured to specification ASTM-A-351. The flanges subject to this

order are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.21.1000 and

7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes. The written description of the scope of this order remains

dispositive.

The review covers one Indian manufacturer/exporter, Akai, and the

period February 9, 1994 through January 31, 1995.

United States Price (USP)

In calculating USP for Akai, the Department treated respondent's

sales as export price (EP), as defined in section 772(a) of the Act,

because the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated U.S.

purchasers prior to the date of importation.

We calculated EP based on packed, delivered, duty-paid prices to

unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made deductions from

the gross unit price, where appropriate, for inland freight-plant/

warehouse to port of exit, brokerage and handling, international

freight, and U.S. customs duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A)

of the Act. We added to the gross unit price packing costs for shipment

to the United States, where applicable, pursuant to section

772(c)(1)(A) of the Act.

No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value (NV)

A. Viability

In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of

sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,

we compared Akai's volume of home market sales of the foreign like

product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because Akai's

aggregate volume of home market sales was less than five percent of its

aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we

determined that the aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country is insufficient to permit a proper comparison

with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.

Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B), we chose Canada as

the most appropriate third country market for comparison.

B. Model Match

We first searched for the third country model which is identical in

characteristics with each U.S. model. When there were no

contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise, we searched for the

third country model which is most like or most similar in

characteristics with each U.S. model. To perform the model match, we

first searched for the most similar third country model with regard to

alloy. If there were several third country models with identical alloy,

we then searched among the models with identical alloy for the most

similar third country model with regard to size. We continued this

process with regard to type and standard. If, as a result of this

analysis, several third country models were deemed equally similar, we

chose the third country model which, when compared to the U.S. model,

had the lowest difference in variable cost of manufacturing (difmer),

provided the difmer did not exceed 20 percent of the total cost of

manufacturing of the U.S. model.

For those U.S. models where no foreign like product was found with

a difmer of less than 20 percent, we resorted to CV as the basis of NV,

in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

C. Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on Akai's cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing

the subject merchandise, selling, general and administrative expense

(SG&A) and profit incurred and realized in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like product, and U.S. packing

costs. We used the costs of materials, fabrication, and G&A as reported

in the CV portion of Akai's questionnaire response.

We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales

portion of Akai's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses and

profit on the information reported in the third country sales portion

of Akai's questionnaire response. See Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349 (January 19,

1996). For SG&A expenses and actual profit, we used the average of

actual amounts incurred and realized by Akai, in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course

of trade, for consumption in the foreign country, in accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

D. Price-to-Price Comparisons

For those price-to-price comparisons where we did not resort to CV,

we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like products were first

sold for consumption in the third country market to an unrelated party,

in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade

and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP,

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. Akai made all

third country and EP sales of subject merchandise to the same level of

trade. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs

of individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of

sales of the foreign like product. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for expenses incident to placing the foreign like product

in condition packed ready

[[Page 14075]]

for shipment to the place of delivery to the purchaser, and for third

country credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of

the Act. We increased third country price by U.S. packing costs in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and reduced it by third

country packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the

Act. Prices were reported net of value-added taxes (VAT) and,

therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary. In accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, we increased NV by adding U.S. credit

expense. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review.

As a result of this review, we preliminary determine that the

following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)

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

Akai Impex, Ltd................. 2/09/94-1/31/95............ 11.04

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

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party 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 workday thereafter. Case briefs and/or written comments from

interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the

date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments,

limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed

not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who

submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the

argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. The Department will issue the final results of the

administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues

in any such written comments or at hearing, within 180 days of issuance

of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment

of antidumping dumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews

for all shipments of Flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from

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

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Akai will be the

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

merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in these

reviews but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to

be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final

results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-

specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in these

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

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

merchandise in the final results of these reviews, or the LTFV

investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is

a firm covered in these or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate

will be 162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation (59 FR 5994, February 9, 1994).

This notice serves as a preliminary 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

the return/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.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

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

Dated: March 21, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-7632 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M