Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumpting Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-807]

Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand;

Preliminary Results of Antidumpting 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 by Tube Forgings of America, Inc.,

and Mills Iron Works, Inc., (hereafter petitioner) who were the members

of the petitioning group of companies in the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Thailand. This review

covers TTU Industrial Corp., Ltd. (TTU), a manufacturer/exporter of

this merchandise to the United States, and the period July 1, 1995,

through June 30, 1996. The firm failed to submit a response to our

questionnaire. As a result, we have preliminarily determined to sue the

facts otherwise available for cash deposit and appraisement purposes.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested

to submit with the arguments: (1) A statement of the issues and (2) a

brief summary of the arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel Manzoni or James Terpstra, Office of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group II, Import Administration,

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

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202) 482-4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

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

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

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA).

Background

On July 30, 1996, the petitioner requested, in accordance with

section 353.22(a) of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.22(a)),

an administrative review of the antidumping duty order (57 FR 29702,

July 6, 1992) on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from

Thailand, with respect to TTU, a manufacturer/exporter of this

merchandise to the United States, and covering the period July 1, 1995,

through June 30, 1996. We published a notice of initiation of the

review on August 15, 1996 (61 FR 42416). On September 19, 1996, the

Department sent an antidumping questionnaire to TTU. The response to

the questionnaire was due on November 3, 1996. To date, we have not

received any response from TTU. The Department is now conducting this

review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this order is certain carbon steel but-weld

pipe fitting, 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 subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope

of this proceeding is dispositive.

The review covers TTU and the period July 1, 1995, through June 30,

1996 (POR).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of

the Act, that the use of facts available (FA) is appropriate for TTU

because it did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire. We find

that this firm has withheld ``information that has been requested by

the administering

[[Page 16542]]

authority.'' Furthermore, we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b)

of the Act, it is appropriate to make an inference adverse to the

interests of this company because it failed to cooperate by not

responding to our questionnaire.

Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a

respondent in an administrative review on facts otherwise available

because that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act

authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the interests of that

respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act

also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available

information derived from the petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or other information placed on the

record. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall,

to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply

that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information

to be used has probative value. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.,

2d sess. 870 (1994).)

In this case, for total adverse FA we have used the best

information available (BIA) rate from the LTFV investigation (50.84

percent), which was based on the highest alleged margin in the

antidumping petition (52.60 percent), adjusted to exclude the export

subsidies found during the period of investigation (1.76 percent). To

corroborate the LTFV BIA rate of 50.84 percent, we examined the basis

of the rates contained in the petition. The US prices in the petition

were based on publicly known prices from a Thai manufacturer selling in

the United States. The foreign market value was based on constructed

value. We reviewed the data submitted by the petitioner and the

assumptions that petitioner made when calculating CV. The methodology

was reasonable and was based on the data reasonably available to

petitioner at the time.

We preliminarily find that, in this case, there are no

circumstances that indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate

as adverse facts available.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin

of 50.84 percent exists for TTU for the period July 1, 1995, through

June 30, 1996.

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 of this notice. 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 arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with the arguments: (1) A statement

of the issues and (2) a brief summary of the arguments. The Department

will publish the final results of the administrative review, including

the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written

comments or at a hearing.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for

all shipments of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Thailand

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

the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results

of administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original

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 an

individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the

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

the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)

if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this

or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 39.10 percent,

the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (57 FR

29702, July 6, 1992).

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

sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR

353.22 and 19 CFR 353.25.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-8845 Filed 4-4-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M