# Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand; Preliminary Results of Antidumpting Duty Administrative Review > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-8845 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** April 7, 1997 - **Citation:** 62 FR 16541 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-8845. Public record. Not legal advice.