Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From India

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-502]

Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From

India

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the

Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from India. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Rajinder

Pipes Ltd. The period of review is May 1, 1997, through April 30, 1998.

We have preliminarily determined that respondent's margin should be

based on total adverse facts available. If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will

instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the

selected adverse facts-available rate.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested

to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Tabash at (202) 482-5047 or

Robin Gray at (202) 482-4023, Import Administration, International

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department of Commere's (the

Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).

Case History

On June 29, 1998, the Department published in the Federal Register

(63 FR 35188) the antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from India. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, we

published a notice of initiation of administrative review of this

antidumping duty order for the period May 1, 1997, through April 30,

1998. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Rajinder Pipes Ltd.

(Rajinder). The Department is conducting this administrative review in

accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.

On September 17, 1998, the petitioners alleged that Rajinder made

home-market sales of subject merchandise at prices below the cost of

production (COP). On October 19, 1998, we concluded that petitioners'

allegation provided us with reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that Rajinder made below-cost sales in the home market within the

meaning of section 773(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, we initiated a

COP investigation of Rajinder's home-market sales. On

[[Page 6047]]

October 21, 1998, we instructed Rajinder to respond to section D of the

original questionnaire, which requests cost information for the period

currently under review. Despite numerous extensions, Rajinder did not

provide the requested cost information.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review include circular welded non-

alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside

diameter of 0.372 inches or more but not more than 406.4 millimeters

(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end,

beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes

are generally known as standard pipe, though they may also be called

structural or mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes

and tubes are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam,

natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating

systems, air-conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and

mechanical applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protection

of electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those

types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe

applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical

description outlined above are included in the scope of this order,

except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-

drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.

Imports of the products covered by this review are currently

classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

subheadings: 61032, 61049, 7306.30.10, and 7306.30.50. Although, the

HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the

Department's written description of the scope of this proceeding

remains dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Because Rajinder has not provided the requested cost information

and has not provided record evidence substantiating its reasons for not

responding to our questionnaire, Rajinder has precluded us from

conducting an analysis to determine whether its comparison-market

(India) sales prices were below their respective COP in substantial

quantities and over an extended period of time. Accordingly, we believe

that we must resort to total facts available.

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party

fails to provide information requested by the Department by the

deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner

requested, the Department shall use the facts otherwise available in

reaching the applicable determination under this title. In this review,

as described below, Rajinder failed to provide a response to our COP

questionnaire by the established deadline.

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not

decline to consider whether the information submitted by the respondent

that is already on the record is usable. The information that Rajinder

failed to provide would have been the first comprehensive cost

information to be used in the Department's cost investigation. Thus,

the information currently on the record is so incomplete that it cannot

serve as a reliable basis for reaching preliminary results (see

Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 969 (January 7, 1997)). Therefore, in

accordance with section 776(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308 (a), we

must use facts otherwise available.

In selecting facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act

authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department

finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability to comply with requests for information. In the

instant review, Rajinder submitted five extension requests in response

to the original deadline issued for submission of its section D

questionnaire response. The reasons cited for the extension requests

changed over time. Initially, the company cited several reasons for not

submitting its section D response including preparation of year-end

reports, problems with the telephone lines, and insufficient staff. In

the last two extension requests, Rajinder cited a claim of labor unrest

which Rajinder failed to substantiate. Even in light of these

extensions, Rajinder ultimately failed to submit the relevant cost

information for the record of this review. Therefore, we have

determined that Rajinder has failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability to comply with our request for information for this

review. Consequently, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the

Department may use adverse inferences when selecting from among the

facts otherwise available.

The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among

the possible sources of information has been to ensure that the margin

is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts

available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with

complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static

Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan; Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).

The Department will also consider the extent to which a party may

benefit from its own lack of cooperation in selecting a rate. See

Roller Chain Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

69,472, 60477 (November 10, 1997), and Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53820-21 (October 16, 1997).

In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to

induce Rajinder's cooperation, we have assigned to Rajinder as adverse

facts available a rate of 87.39 percent, the highest rate calculated

for any respondent for any segment of this proceeding. This rate was

calculated for the 88/89 administrative review of this order. Although

Rajinder asked that we use old cost data as facts available for this

review, because we do not have any information concerning Rajinder's

current costs, we cannot determine if its old cost data would be

sufficiently adverse for use as facts available. Therefore, we have not

used it.

Section 776(c) of the Act directs the Department to corroborate, to

the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts available.

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the

extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the

information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as

input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for

calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is an

administrative determination. Thus, in an administrative review, if the

Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated

dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of the margin from that time

period. See, e.g., Elemental Sulphur from Canada: Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR at 971 (January 7,

1997), and Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof from

[[Page 6048]]

France, et al, 62 FR 2801 (January 15, 1997).

As to the relevance of the margin used for adverse facts available,

the Department stated in Tapered Roller Bearings from Japan; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 47454

(September 9, 1997), that it will consider information reasonably at

its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a

margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected

margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department

will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See

also, Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 49567 (September 26, 1995). We have

determined that there is no evidence which would indicate that the rate

is irrelevant or inappropriate as an adverse facts available rate for

Rajinder in the instant review. Therefore, we have applied, as total

adverse facts available, the 87.39 percent margin from the 1988/89

administrative review.

For more detailed information on the use, selection, and

corroboration of facts available, please see the January 28, 1999,

decision memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Richard W. Moreland, which

is available in the Central Records Unit, Import Administration, B-099,

Main Commerce Building, Washington, DC, 20230.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the

weighted-average dumping margin (in percent) for the period May 1,

1997, through April 30, 1998, to be as follows.

Company

Rajinder Pipes Ltd.--87.39

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues

raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective

case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this

notice.

Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this

proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement

of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic

version included. The Department will publish the final results of this

administrative review subsequently, including the results of its

analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or hearing. The

Department will issue final results of this review within 120 days of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

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

of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

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

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in the final results of this

review; (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) the cash-

deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to

be 7.08 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the final

determination of sales at LTFV, as explained in the 1995/96 new shipper

review of this order. See Certain Welded Carbon Standard Steel Pipes

and Tubes From India; Final Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 47632, 47644 (September 10, 1997).

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 reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: February 1, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-2998 Filed 2-5-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P