[Federal Register: July 8, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 40637-40642]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jy03-38]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-816]
Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Preliminary results of antidumping duty administrative review
and notice of intent to rescind in part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from respondent Ta Chen Stainless
Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Ta Chen'') and from Markovitz Enterprises, Inc.
(Flowline Division), Shaw Alloy Piping Products Inc., Gerlin, Inc., and
Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc., collectively (``petitioners''), the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. Specifically, the petitioners requested
that the Department conduct the administrative review for Ta Chen,
Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd. (``Liang
[[Page 40638]]
Feng''), and Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Tru-Flow''). This review
covers Ta Chen, a manufacturer and exporter of the subject merchandise
and Liang Feng and Tru-Flow, manufacturers of the subject merchandise.
The period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002.
With regard to Ta Chen, we preliminarily determine that sales have been
made below normal value (``NV''). With regard to Liang Feng and Tru-
Flow, we are giving notice that we intend to rescind this review based
on record evidence that there were no entries into the United States of
subject merchandise during the POR. For a full discussion of the intent
to rescind with respect to Liang Feng and Tru-Flow, see the ``Notice of
Intent To Rescind in Part'' section of this notice.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection (``Customs'') to assess antidumping duties. The
preliminary results are listed below in the section titled
``Preliminary Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Freed or Robert Bolling,
Enforcement Group III--Office 9, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3818 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.
Background
On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings from Taiwan. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings
from Taiwan, 58 FR 33250 (June 16, 1993). On June 5, 2002, the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan for the
period June 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. See Notice of Opportunity To
Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 67 FR 38640 (June 5, 2002).
On June 25, 2002, petitioners requested an antidumping duty
administrative review for the following companies: Ta Chen, Liang Feng,
and Tru-Flow for the period June 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. On June
28, 2002, Ta Chen requested an administrative review of its sales to
the United States during the POR. On July 24, 2002, the Department
published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this
antidumping duty administrative review for the period June 1, 2001,
through May 31, 2002. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
In Part, 67 FR 48435 (July 24, 2002).
On August 15, 2002, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to Ta Chen, Liang Feng and Tru-Flow. On August 30, 2002,
Liang Feng and Tru-Flow reported that they had no sales, entries or
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
On September 12, 2002, Ta Chen reported that it made sales of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR in its response to
Section A of the Department's questionnaire. On October 4, 2002, Ta
Chen submitted its response to Sections B, C, and D of the Department's
questionnaire. On January 7, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a
supplemental questionnaire to Section A of the Department's
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on January 28,
2003. On January 22, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a
supplemental questionnaire to Section B of the Department's
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on February 12,
2003. On February 3, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a
supplemental questionnaire to Section C of the Department's
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on February 25,
2003. On February 21, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a second
supplemental questionnaire to Sections B, C, and D of the Department's
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on March 26,
2003. On March 3, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen a second
supplemental questionnaire to Section D of the Department's
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on March 26,
2003. On March 11, 2003, the Department issued to Ta Chen additional
questions to its March 3, 2003 supplemental questionnaire to Sections
A, B, and C of the Department's questionnaire, for which Ta Chen
submitted its response on March 26, 2003. On April 7, 2003, the
Department issued to Ta Chen a third supplemental questionnaire to
Sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire, for which Ta
Chen submitted its response on April 24, 2003. On April 11, 2003, the
Department issued to Ta Chen additional questions to its April 7, 2003
supplemental questionnaire to Section A of the Department's
questionnaire, for which Ta Chen submitted its response on April 24,
2003. On May 12, 2003, Ta Chen provided unrequested Section C and D
databases. On May 21, 2003, the Department issued a letter to Ta Chen
asking Ta Chen to explain the revisions to the Section C and D
databases that it submitted on May 12, 2003. Ta Chen submitted its
response to the May 21, 2003 letter on June 4, 2003. On May 23, 2003,
the Department issued to Ta Chen a fourth supplemental questionnaire to
Sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire, for which Ta
Chen submitted its response on June 4, 2003.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may
extend the deadline for conducting an administrative review if it
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the
statutory time limit of 245 days. On March 3, 2003, the Department
extended the time limit for these preliminary results 92 days to June
2, 2003 in accordance with the Act. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 9977
(March 3, 2003). On May 22, 2003, the Department extended the time
limit an additional 28 days to June 30, 2003 for the preliminary
results of this administrative review. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 27988 (May
22, 2003).
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act'').
Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in Part
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an
administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular
exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the
period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales
of the subject merchandise. The Department explained this practice in
the preamble to the Department's regulations. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties 62 FR 27296, 27317 (May 19, 1997) (``Preamble'');
see also Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 5789, 5790 (February 7, 2002) and
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Final Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 18610 (April 10, 2001).
[[Page 40639]]
Both Liang Feng and Tru Flow submitted a letter on the record
stating that they had no sales of subject merchandise during the POR.
See Letter dated August 30, 2002. To confirm their statements, on
September 23, 2002, the Department conducted a Customs inquiry and the
record from that inquiry indicates that there were no entries of
subject merchandise during the POR. See the June 19, 2003 Memorandum to
the File.
Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department
preliminarily intends to rescind this review as to Liang Feng and Tru
Flow. The Department may take additional steps to confirm that these
companies had no sales, shipments or entries of subject merchandise to
the United States.
Scope of the Review
The products subject to this administrative review are certain
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or
unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless
steel butt-weld pipe fittings (``pipe fittings'') are used to connect
pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded
connections. The subject merchandise is used where one or more of the
following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system: (1)
Corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than
stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the material in the
system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high temperatures
are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; and (5) high
pressures are contained within the system.
Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, with the following five
shapes the most basic: ``Elbows'', ``tees'', ``reducers'', ``stub
ends'', and ``caps.'' The edges of finished pipe fittings are beveled.
Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from this review.
The pipe fittings subject to this review are classifiable under
subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'').
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review
is dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of
Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of
this order.
Period of Review
The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2001 through May
31, 2002.
Product Comparison
For the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to
pipe fittings sold in the United States, we considered all pipe
fittings covered by the scope of review section above, which were sold
by Ta Chen in the home market during the POR, to be ``foreign like
products'' in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act. 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 next most similar foreign
like product on the basis of the physical characteristics reported by
Ta Chen as follows (listed in order of preference): specification,
seam, grade, size and schedule.
Since some of Ta Chen's sales were actually produced by other
unaffilated Taiwanese manufacturers, the Department has incorporated
that information into the product comparison methodology. Petitioners
have argued that the unaffiliated producers should be treated as
exporters of subject merchandise to the U.S. See Petitioner's comments
December 12, 2002, at 26-27. The record shows that Ta Chen both
purchased from, and entered into tolling arrangements with,
unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers of subject merchandise, and the
record does not indicate that either manufacturer had knowledge that
the subject merchandise would be sold into the United States market.
See Ta Chen's September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire response at 2;
see also Ta Chen's January 28, 2002 Section A supplemental
questionnaire response at 1-12. According to Ta Chen's September 12,
2002 Section A response, for subcontracted and resold fittings, Ta Chen
labels itself as the producer. We have preliminarily determined that Ta
Chen is the sole exporter, and that it is not appropriate to exclude
sales of subject merchandise produced by unaffiliated manufacturers
from Ta Chen's U.S. sales database.
However, section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines ``foreign like
product'' to be ``[t]he subject merchandise and other merchandise which
is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the
same country by the same person as, that merchandise.'' Thus,
consistent with the Department's past practice, for products that Ta
Chen has identified with certainty that it purchased from a particular
unaffiliated producer and resold in the U.S. market, we have restricted
the matching of products to identical or similar products purchased by
Ta Chen from the same unaffiliated producer and resold in the home
market.
Date of Sale
The Department's regulations state that the Department will
normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or
producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date
of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If Commerce can establish ``a different
date [that] better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer
establishes the material terms of sale,'' Commerce may choose a
different date. Id.
In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be
used as the date of sale in both the home market and U.S. market. See
Ta Chen's Sections B and C responses dated October 4, 2002. Moreover,
Ta Chen did not indicate any industry practice which would warrant the
use of a date other than invoice date in determining date of sale.
Accordingly, as we have no information demonstrating that another
date is more appropriate, we preliminarily based date of sale on
invoice date recorded in the ordinary course of business by the
involved sellers and resellers of the subject merchandise in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.401(i).
Affiliation
The petitioners assert that Ta Chen was affiliated with its home
market customer and vendor, PFP Taiwan (``PFP'') during the POR. At the
Department's request, Ta Chen submitted information regarding PFP's
corporate structure, ownership, and relationship with Ta Chen. The
evidence currently on the record indicates that (1) the president of Ta
Chen, Robert Shieh, and the head operating manager of PFP, Roger Tsai
are distant relatives in that Roger Tsai is the brother of Robert
Shieh's older brother's wife; (2) PFP leases office space out of Ta
Chen's Taipei sales office, and pays Ta Chen appropriate consideration
for the office space; and (3) Roger Tsai and his family members owned
stock in Ta Chen as of June 2002 although their collective percentage
of Ta Chen ownership is substantially below 5 percent. See Ta Chen's
April 24, 2003 submission at pages 1-2, 17, and Exhibit 1; see also Ta
Chen's May 12, 2003 submission at pages 2-3. Despite these connections,
the evidence on the record at this time does not show that Robert
Shieh, president of Ta Chen, has the ability to exercise control over
PFP, or that Roger Tsai, head operating manager of PFP, has the ability
to
[[Page 40640]]
exercise control over Ta Chen. Therefore, the Department preliminarily
determines that Ta Chen and PFP are not affiliated. However, the
Department will continue to investigate whether Ta Chen and PFP are
affiliated for purposes of this administrative review.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by Ta Chen to the
United States were made at prices below normal value (``NV''), we
compared, where appropriate, the constructed export price (``CEP'') to
the NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act,
we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly
weight-averaged NV of the foreign like product.
Export Price/Constructed Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price as ``the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold)
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States. * * *'' Section 772(b) of the Act defines
constructed export price as ``the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the
producer or exporter. * * *''
Consistent with recent past reviews, all of the sales at issue are
being considered CEP sales because the sale to the first unaffiliated
customer was made between Ta Chen International (CA) Corp. (``TCI''),
located in the United States, and the unaffiliated customer in the
United States. See Analysis Memorandum for Certain Stainless Steel
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of the 2001-
2002 Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from Taiwan (June 30, 2003) (``Analysis Memo''); see also Ta
Chen's February 25, 2003 submission at pages 4-5. TCI takes title to
the subject merchandise, invoices the U.S. customer, and receives
payment from the U.S. customer. In addition, TCI handles all
communication with the U.S. customer, incurs risk of non-payment,
relays orders and price requests from the U.S. customer to Ta Chen, and
pays for U.S. Custom duties, brokerage charges, U.S. antidumping
duties, ocean freight and U.S. inland freight. See Ta Chen's January
28, 2003 Section A Supplemental Questionnaire Response at pages 14-15.
Having determined such sales are CEP, pursuant to section 772(b) of
the Act, we calculated the price of Ta Chen's sales based on CEP. We
calculated CEP based on FOB or delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States and, where appropriate, we deducted
discounts. In addition, in accordance with section 772(d)(1), the
Department deducted commissions, direct selling expenses and indirect
selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, which related to
commercial activity in the United States. With respect to inventory
carrying costs, we note that certain of Ta Chen's sales do not enter
TCI's inventory prior to shipment to U.S. customers, but are shipped
directly to the end user. Therefore, we removed the cost of goods sold
for those sales used in the calculation of Ta Chen's reported inventory
turnover ratio. We also made deductions for movement expenses, which
include foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean
freight, containerization expense, harbor construction tax, marine
insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S.
Customs duties. Finally, where appropriate, in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability, as discussed below, we
calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-CV Comparisons'' and ``Price-
to-Price Comparisons'' sections of this notice.
1. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared Ta Chen's volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. In
addition, Ta Chen stated that the home market is viable since sales to
the home market are more than five percent by quantity of sales in the
United States. See Ta Chen's September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire
response at page 3. Because Ta Chen's aggregate volume of home market
sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we
preliminarily determine that the home market is viable. We, therefore,
based NV on home market sales.
2. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (``COP'')
in the most-recently completed segment of this proceeding,\1\ we have
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its
home market were made at prices below the COP, pursuant to sections
773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis of home
market sales by Ta Chen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings From Taiwan (``Final Results''), 67 FR 78417 (December
24, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weight-averaged COP based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and
administrative expenses (``G&A''), interest expenses, and packing
costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by Ta Chen in its original
and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For these preliminary
results, we did not make any adjustments to Ta Chen's submitted costs.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
We compared the weight-averaged COP for Ta Chen to home market
sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of
the Act in order to determine whether these sales had been made at
prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were
made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
were not at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and
(B) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to
home market prices, less any movement charges, discounts, and direct
and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, when less than 20
percent of Ta Chen's sales of a given product were at prices less than
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determined that the
[[Page 40641]]
below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities as defined by
section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. When 20 percent or more of Ta Chen's
sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the
COP, we determined that such sales have been made in ``substantial
quantities'' within an extended period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. In such cases,
because we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales
were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we
appropriately disregarded below-cost sales and used the remaining sales
as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)
of the Act.
D. Calculation of Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials, fabrication, G&A
(including interest expenses), U.S. packing costs, direct and indirect
selling expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)
of the Act, we based selling expenses and G&A (``SG&A'') and profits on
the actual amounts incurred and realized by Ta Chen in connection with
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary
course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. For selling
expenses, we used the actual weight-averaged home market direct and
indirect selling expenses.
3. Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices
above the COP, we based NV on prices to home market customers. Where
appropriate, we deducted early payment discounts, credit expenses, and
inland freight. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home
market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP
comparisons. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, in accordance with section
773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and added
U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act,
where there were no usable contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale
observation, we based NV on CV.
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 CEP transaction. The NV LOT is
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market, or when NV
is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses
and profit. 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 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 a 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 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, 61732-
61733 (November 19, 1997).
In reviewing a respondent's request for a LOT adjustment, we
examine all types of selling functions and activities reported in
respondent's questionnaire response on LOT. In analyzing differences in
selling functions, we determine whether the levels of trade identified
by the respondent are meaningful. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27371 (May 19, 1997).
In the present review, Ta Chen did not request a LOT adjustment, but
did request a CEP offset.
Ta Chen reported one LOT in the home market based on two channels
of distribution: Trading companies and end-users. We examined the
reported selling functions and found that Ta Chen's selling functions
to its home market customers, regardless of channel of distribution,
include inventory maintenance, technical services, packing, after-sales
services, freight and delivery arrangements, general selling functions,
some research and development, and customer service. See Ta Chen's
September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire response at page 7; see also
Ta Chen's January 28, 2003 Section A supplemental questionnaire
response at pages 15-16. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that the
selling functions for the reported channels of distribution are
sufficiently similar to consider them as one LOT in the comparison
market.
Because Ta Chen reported that all of its CEP sales are made through
TCI, Ta Chen is claiming that there is only one LOT in the U.S. market
for its constructed export price sales and we preliminarily agree with
Ta Chen's assertion that its U.S. sales constitute a single LOT. We
examined the reported selling functions and found that Ta Chen's
selling functions for sales to TCI include order processing, payment of
marine insurance and packing for shipment to the United States. TCI
handles the remaining selling functions for U.S. sales, such as:
Communicating with U.S. customers; handling customer orders; dealing
with U.S. customs duties, brokerage, inland freight and U.S.
warehousing; taking seller's risk; and, incurring inventory carrying
costs on the water and ocean freight.
The Department compared Ta Chen's selling functions offered to its
home market customers, trading companies and end users with Ta Chen's
selling functions for U.S. sales offered to its wholly-owned
subsidiary, TCI. Ta Chen's selling functions for sales to the U.S.,
namely, order processing, payment of marine insurance and packing for
shipment, are less numerous and less advanced than Ta Chen's selling
functions to its home market customers, which include inventory
maintenance, technical services, packing, after-sales services, freight
and delivery arrangements, general selling functions, some research and
development, and customer service. Therefore, we preliminarily find
that Ta Chen performed fewer selling functions for its U.S. sales than
it did in the home market. Ta Chen requested a CEP offset due to
differences in level of trade between its home market and U.S. sales
(see Ta Chen's September 12, 2002 Section A questionnaire response).
When, as here, the NV is established at a LOT that is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions,
the Department's practice is to adjust NV to account for this
difference. However, we were unable to quantify the LOT adjustment
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Therefore, we applied a
CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons, in accordance with section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
[[Page 40642]]
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank,
in accordance with Section 773A(a) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for Ta Chen for the
period June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd............................ 1.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments,
may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See
19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, we would appreciate that parties submitting
written comments also provide the Department with an additional copy of
those comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment
Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department
shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has
calculated an assessment rate applicable to all appropriate entries. We
calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered value, or entered quantity, as
appropriate, of the examined sales for that importer. Upon completion
of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will
instruct Customs to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise
by that importer.
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 of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each of the
reviewed companies will be the rate listed in the final results of
review (except that if the rate for a particular product is de minimis,
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously 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 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 the ``all others'' rate
of 51.01 percent, which is 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.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of the proprietary information disclosed
under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to govern
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding.
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 the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 30, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-17215 Filed 7-7-03; 8:45 am]