Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-533-809]

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty new shipper

reviews.

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

[[Page 9736]]

SUMMARY: On November 25, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of its new shipper

reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel

flanges (SSF) from India (61 FR 59861). These reviews cover exports of

this merchandise to the United States by two manufacturer/exporters,

Isibars Ltd. (Isibars) and Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Ltd.

(Patheja), during the period September 1, 1995 through February 29,

1996.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We received comments from respondent Patheja

concerning alleged clerical errors. The review indicates the existence

of a dumping margin for Patheja for this period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration,

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

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482-2704 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

The antidumping duty order on SSF from India was published February

9, 1994 (59 FR 5994). On November 25, 1996, the Department published in

the Federal Register the preliminary results of these new shipper

reviews of the antidumping duty order on SSF from India (61 FR 59861).

The Department has now completed these new shipper reviews in

accordance with section 751 of the 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 within 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 subheadings 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 reviews cover two Indian manufacturer/exporters, Isibars and

Patheja, and the period September 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received comments from Patheja on December 10,

1996, concerning alleged clerical errors.

Comment 1: Patheja argues that it provided audited figures on

August 22, 1996, to update provisional data submitted earlier, but the

Department relied instead on the earlier, provisional data for the

preliminary results. Patheja argues that the Department should revise

its analysis using the audited figures pertaining to cost of

manufacturing, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses

and profitability.

Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis

accordingly.

Comment 2: Patheja argues that the Department inadvertently added

vendor charges, a component of material costs, twice, resulting in

double counting of those charges.

Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis

accordingly.

Comment 3: Patheja argues that the Department failed to deduct the

value of scrap metal from the cost of manufacturing.

Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis

accordingly.

Comment 4: Patheja argues that the Department used as an ending

date for the credit expense period for U.S. sales the date of October

11, 1996, whereas the correct date of payment is October 30, 1996.

Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis

accordingly.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we have

determined that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist

for Isibars and Patheja:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)

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

Isibars................................... 9/1/95-

2/29/96 0.00

Patheja................................... 9/1/95-

2/29/96 1.61

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

Individual differences between the U.S. price and normal value may

vary from the above percentages. The Department shall instruct the

Customs Service to liquidate all appropriate entries, and to assess no

antidumping duties on Isibars' entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

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

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

(1) The rate for the reviewed firms will be as listed above;

(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed

above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific

rate published for the most recent period;

(3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but

the

[[Page 9737]]

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

for the manufacturer of the merchandise in earlier reviews or the

original investigation, whichever is the most recent; and

(4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered

in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate

established in the LTFV investigation.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during the 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 order (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 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

violation which is subject to sanction.

This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR

Sec. 353.22(h).

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-5229 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P