[Federal Register: February 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6409-6412]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07fe03-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-807]
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the
antidumping duty (AD) order on carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings
from Thailand. This review covers one foreign producer/exporter, Thai
Benkan Company, Ltd. (TBC). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2000,
through June 30, 2001. Based on our analysis of the comments received,
we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average
dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section
entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Tom Futtner,
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4114 or 482-3814, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 7, 2002, the Department published the preliminary results
of the administrative review of the AD order on carbon steel butt-weld
pipe fittings from Thailand. See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 67 FR 51178 (August 7, 2002) (Preliminary
Results). The POR is July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001; the is TBC.
We conducted verification of the information submitted on the record by
TBC and issued our verification report on December 9, 2002. We invited
parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. On December
20, 2002, we received TBC's case brief. On January 3, 2003, we received
rebuttal comments from Tube Forgings of America, Inc., one of the
original petitioners in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.
No interested party requested a public hearing in this proceeding.
The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
[[Page 6410]]
Extension of Deadlines
Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend
the deadline for completion of final review results if it determines
that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory
time limit. On December 3, 2002, the Department fully extended the time
limit for the final results of this case to February 3, 2003 (see
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 71935).
Scope of the Review
The product covered by this order is certain carbon steel butt-weld
pipe fittings, 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 pipe fittings are currently classified
under subheading 7307.93.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, during the week of
October 28 through November 1, 2002, we conducted verification of the
information provided by TBC. We used standard verification procedures
including examination of relevant sales and financial records, and
selection of relevant source documentation as exhibits. Our
verification findings are detailed in the memorandum ``Verification of
the Sales Questionnaire Responses of Thai Benkan Corp., and Benkan
America, Inc.--Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand--
Administrative Review (2000-2001)'' from Tom Futtner, Program Manager
to The File, dated December 9, 2002, the public version of which is on
file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of the Main Commerce
building (CRU-Public File).
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D)
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this title. Because the home market
sales information submitted by TBC could not be verified, the
Department applied total facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2).
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department
determines that a respondent's response to a request for information
does not comply with the request, the Department shall inform the
person submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and
shall, to the extent practicable, provide the person the opportunity to
remedy or explain the deficiency. If that person submits further
information that continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is
not submitted within the applicable time limits, the Department may,
subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the
Department may draw an inference that is adverse to the interests of
that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Section 776(b)(4) states that adverse inferences may be based on
information derived from the petition, the investigation or prior
reviews, or any other information placed on the record.
We find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b)
of the Act, the use of facts available for TBC is appropriate in this
instant review. As the record of this case indicates, the Department
provided TBC with ample opportunity to prepare a correct and verifiable
home market data set. Yet, despite numerous opportunities to provide
the Department with a correct home market data set, at verification the
Department discovered that TBC's information was flawed. Because TBC
failed to provide a reconciliation of the reported home market sales'
quantity and value to its financial statements, and its constructed
value (CV) information was determined to be unreliable in the
preliminary results, TBC's actions prevented the Department from
establishing a reliable basis for normal value (NV) in this review. As
such, the use of facts available in the final determination is
warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
In selecting from among the facts available, section 776(b) of the
Act authorizes the Department to use an inference that is adverse to a
party if the Department finds that the party has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information. The Department applies adverse facts available ``to ensure
that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' Uruguay Round Agreements
Act, Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc No. 103-316, vol. 1,
at 870 (1994) (SAA).
To examine whether the respondent ``cooperated'' by ``acting to the
best of its ability'' under section 776(b) of the Act, the Department
considers, among other things, the accuracy and completeness of
submitted information and whether the respondent has hindered the
calculation of accurate dumping margins. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Venezuela, 67 FR 62119 (October 3,
2002) (Steel Flat Products From Venezuela), Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808 (October 16, 1997). In this case,
TBC failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by not being
adequately prepared for verification and not being able to reconcile
its own home market data. Furthermore, TBC's inability to provide a
reconcilable home market sales listing and its lack of preparedness for
verification, has hindered the calculation of an accurate margin in
this review.
It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any
segment of a proceeding as total adverse facts available when a
respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability. See e.g.,
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Taiwan; Preliminary Results and
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR
5789 (February 7, 2002) (``Consistent with Department practice in cases
where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and
in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts
available we have applied a margin based on the highest margin from any
prior segment of the proceeding * * * In this case, the highest margin
from any segment of the proceeding is * * * the petition rate in the
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation''). Therefore, in the instant
case, the Department is applying
[[Page 6411]]
the margin of 52.60 percent to TBC for these final results. This margin
was derived from the AD petition used in the LTFV investigation (see
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Thailand, 57 FR 21065 (May 18,
1992). See also Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From
Thailand; Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
62 FR 40797, 40803 (July 30, 1997) (Review 1995-1896).
Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes
secondary information and section 776(c) provides that the Department
shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is described in the SAA as ``[i]nformation
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject
merchandise.'' SAA at 870. The SAA further provides that
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value (see SAA, at 870).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used.
As part of the corroboration process, we examined the basis of the
rates contained in the petition. The U.S. prices in the petition were
based on publicly available prices from a Thai manufacturer selling in
the United States. The normal value was based on CV. 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 also
note that the same rate of 52.60 percent was applied as the best
information available in the prior segment of this proceeding when
another respondent failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. See
Review 1995-1896. For purposes of this administrative review, we have
reviewed the petition and the administrative record, and found no
reason to believe that the reliability of this information should be
called into question.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department is required to consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether there are circumstances that would render
a margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department
will disregard the selected margin and determine an appropriate margin
(see, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where
the Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts
available because the margin was unusually high since it was based on
another company's uncharacteristic business expense)).
The highest margin in the history of this proceeding is 52.60
percent from the petition in the original LTFV investigation. In this
review, there are no circumstances indicating that this margin is
inappropriate as facts available. Therefore, for the reasons stated
above, we find that the 52.60 percent rate is corroborated to the
greatest extent practicable in accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum''
(Decision Memorandum) from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Group II, to Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 3, 2003,
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which
parties raised, and to which we have responded, all of which are in the
Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties
can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this
investigation and the corresponding recommendations in this public
memorandum, which is on file in CRU-Public File. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on
the World Wide Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we determine that the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 2000,
through June 30, 2001:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thai Benkan Company, Ltd.................................. 52.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rate
The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the company
for whom we applied facts available, we based the assessment rate on
the facts available margin percentage. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will
direct Customs to assess the resulting assessment rate against the
entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the
company's entries during the review period.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review
for all shipments of pipe fittings from Thailand entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, 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 this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.5
percent ad valorem and, therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will be
required; (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
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 39.10 percent, the ``All
Others'' rate which is based on the LTFV investigation (57 FR 21065,
May 18, 1992). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final 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 Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the
[[Page 6412]]
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the
Department's regulations. 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 terms
of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: February 3, 2003.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum Thai Benkan Company, Ltd. (TBC)
1. Application of Adverse Facts Available
2. Indirect Selling Expense Ratio
3. CEP Profit Ratio
[FR Doc. 03-3087 Filed 2-6-03; 8:45 am]