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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-809]

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary

Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of new shipper antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by one manufacturer/exporter,

Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (Panchmahal), the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting a new shipper administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges

(flanges) from India. The review covers sales during the period

February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.

We preliminarily determine that Panchmahal sold subject merchandise

at not less than normal value during the period of review (POR).

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam, Alain Letort, or John

Kugelman, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III--Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC

20230; telephone: (202) 482-2704 (Killiam), -4243 (Letort), or -0649

(Kugelman).

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). In addition, unless otherwise

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

to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997). Although

the Department's new regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351 (62 FR

27296--May 19, 1997), do not govern these

[[Page 5502]]

proceedings, citations to those regulations are provided, where

appropriate, to explain current departmental practice.

Background

The Department published the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel flanges from India on February 9, 1994 (59 FR 5994).

Panchmahal, by letters dated February 24, March 18, and April 1, 1997,

requested a new shipper review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the

Act and section 353.22(h) of the Department's interim regulations,

which govern determinations of antidumping duties for new shippers.

These provisions state that, among other requirements, a producer or

exporter requesting a new shipper review must include with its request

the date on which the merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot certify as to the date of

first entry, the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for

export to the United States (interim regulations, section

353.22(h)(2)(i)). Panchmahal provided the shipment date at the time of

its request for review.

On May 2, 1997, the Department published a notice of initiation of

this new shipper review of Panchmahal (62 FR 24088). The Department is

now conducting this review in accordance with section 751 of the Act

and section 353.22 of its interim regulations.

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 review covers one Indian manufacturer/exporter, Panchmahal, and

the period February 1, 1996 through January 31, 1997.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all

stainless steel flanges which respondent sold in the home market during

the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of determining

appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no

sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.

sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar foreign like product

on the basis of the characteristics listed in the Department's

antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons, we

matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics

reported by the respondent.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by the respondent

to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared

export price (EP) to normal value (NV), as described in the ``Export

Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance

with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-

average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Export Price

We calculated the price of United States sales based on EP, in

accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject

merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States

prior to the date of importation and the constructed export price

methodology was not indicated by the facts of record.

We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated customers

in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the

starting price for movement expenses, which were comprised of

international freight and marine insurance; we also added duty drawback

to the starting price.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home-market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product

sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper

comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United

States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the price at

which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the

home market in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary

course of trade.

We made adjustments to NV for differences in credit expenses. We

reduced NV by home market packing costs section under 773(a)(6)(B) and

increased NV by U.S. packing costs in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent

practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at

the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV

LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or,

when NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses

and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-

price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or

CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions

along the chain of distribution between the producer and the

unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a

different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as

manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the

sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of

the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is

more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis

for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP

affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel

Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In its questionnaire responses, Panchmahal stated that there were

no differences in its selling activities by customer categories within

each market. In order to confirm independently the absence of separate

levels of trade within or between the U.S. and home markets, we

examined Panchmahal's

[[Page 5503]]

questionnaire responses for indications that Panchmahal's functions as

a seller differed qualitatively or quantitatively among customer

categories. Where possible, we further examined whether each selling

function was performed on a substantial portion of sales.

Panchmahal sold to end-users in the U.S. market. In the home

market, Panchmahal sold to local distributors and end-users. Panchmahal

performed essentially the same selling functions for sales to all its

home-market customers, as well as to U.S. customers. Thus, our analysis

of the questionnaire response leads us to conclude that sales within or

between each market are not made at different levels of trade.

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all sales in the home market

and the U.S. market were made at the same level of trade. Therefore, we

have not made a level of trade adjustment because all price comparisons

are at the same level of trade and an adjustment pursuant to section

773(a)(7)(A) is not appropriate.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency

conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates

of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate in

order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily

rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's

practice, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g.,

Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 8915, 8918--March 6,

1996). The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the

past 40 business days. When we determined a fluctuation existed, we

substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

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

following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

Certain Stainless Steel Flanges From India

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

Weighted-

average

Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin

(percent)

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

Panchmahal................................................. 0.00

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

Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of publication of this notice and 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 working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written

comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish a

notice of the final results of the administrative review, including its

analysis of issues raised in any written comments or at a hearing, not

later than 90 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this administrative review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

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

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate

for the respondent will be the rate established in the final results of

this administrative review (except that no deposit will be required for

firms with zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins lower than 0.5

percent); (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 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 these or any prior

reviews, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate

established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results

of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: January 26, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-2626 Filed 2-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P