Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part, 39997-39998 [E5-3688]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–809]
Stainless Steel Flanges From India:
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and
Revocation in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of its
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel flanges from India. See Certain
Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from
India; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Revoke the Order
in Part, 70 FR 10953 (March 7, 2005)
(Preliminary Results). This review
covers imports of subject merchandise
from Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (Viraj), and
Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd. (Echjay). The
period of review (POR) is February 1,
2003, through January 31, 2004.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made no
changes in the margin calculations for
either Viraj or Echjay. Therefore, the
final results do not differ from the
preliminary results. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for Viraj and
Echjay are listed below in the section
entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ In
addition, we are revoking Viraj from the
order.
DATES: Effective Date: July 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred
Baker, Mike Heaney, or Robert James,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (202) 482–2924, (202) 482–
4475, or (202) 482–0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On March 7, 2005, the Department
published the Preliminary Results. We
invited parties to comment on those
preliminary results. On April 6, 2005,
we received a case brief from Echjay. No
party filed rebuttal comments.
Period of Review
The POR is February 1, 2003, through
January 31, 2004.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are certain forged stainless steel flanges,
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 abovedescribed 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 (HTS).
Although the HTS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under review is dispositive
of whether or not the merchandise is
covered by the scope of the order.
Revocation
On March 1, 2004, Viraj requested
revocation of the antidumping duty
order with respect to its sales of the
subject merchandise, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.222(b). In a March 12, 2004
submission Viraj provided each of the
certifications required under 19 CFR
351.222(e).
The Department may revoke, in whole
or in part, an antidumping duty order
upon completion of a review under
section 751 of the Tariff Act. While
Congress has not specified the
procedures that the Department must
follow in revoking the order, the
Department has developed a procedure
for revocation that is described in 19
CFR 351.222. This regulation requires,
inter alia, that a company requesting
revocation must submit the following:
(1) A certification that the company has
sold the subject merchandise at not less
than normal value (NV) in the current
review period and that the company
will not sell subject merchandise at less
than NV in the future; (2) a certification
that the company sold commercial
quantities of the subject merchandise to
the United States in each of the three
years forming the basis of the request;
and (3) an agreement to immediate
reinstatement of the order if the
Department concludes that the
company, subsequent to the revocation,
sold subject merchandise at less than
NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39997
receipt of such a request, the
Department will consider: (1) Whether
the company in question sold subject
merchandise at not less than NV for a
period of at least three consecutive
years; (2) whether the company has
agreed in writing to its immediate
reinstatement in the order, as long as
any exporter or producer is subject to
the order, if the Department concludes
that the company, subsequent to the
revocation, sold the subject
merchandise at less than NV; and (3)
whether the continued application of
the antidumping duty order is otherwise
necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2).
In the preliminary results, we found
the request from Viraj met all of the
criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We
continue to find this is the case for
Viraj. With regard to the criteria of 19
CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin
calculations show that Viraj sold
stainless steel flanges at only a de
minimis level of dumping during the
current period. See dumping margins
below. In addition, Viraj sold stainless
steel flanges at not less than NV in the
two previous administrative reviews
(i.e., Viraj’s dumping margin was either
zero or de minimis). See Certain Forged
Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 69 FR 10409
(March 5, 2004) and Certain Forged
Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 42005 (July 16, 2003).
Based on our examination of the sales
data submitted by Viraj, we determine
that it sold the subject merchandise in
the United States in commercial
quantities in this review and each of the
two prior administrative reviews.
Additionally, we find that the continued
application of the antidumping duty
order is not otherwise necessary to
offset dumping. Therefore, we
determine that Viraj qualifies for
revocation of the order on stainless steel
flanges pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2) and that the order with
respect to merchandise produced and
exported by Viraj should be revoked. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3),
we are terminating the suspension of
liquidation for any of the merchandise
in question that is entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after February 1,
2004, and will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to refund
any cash deposits for such entries.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in Echjay’s brief to
this administrative review are addressed
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
39998
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 12, 2005 / Notices
merchandise, we will order CBP to
terminate the suspension of liquidation
for exports of such merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after February 1,
2004, and to refund all cash deposits
collected for such unliquidated entries.
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of
this notice of final results of
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication,
as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act: (1) Since the margin for
Echjay was less than 0.50 percent, and
hence de minimis, no cash deposit shall
be required for Echjay; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above, the cash deposit 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 investigation, but the
Final Results of Review
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be that established for the most
As a result of our review, we
recent period for the manufacturer of
determine the weighted-average
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
dumping margins for the period
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
February 1, 2003, through January 31,
covered in this review, any previous
2004, to be as follows:
reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the
cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent,
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter
(percent) the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the
LTFV investigation. See Amended Final
Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd .............
0.03 Determination and Antidumping Duty
Viraj Forgings, Ltd ........................
0.01 Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel
Flanges from India; 59 FR 5994
The Department will determine, and
(February 9, 1994).
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
These deposit requirements, when
all appropriate entries. We have
imposed, shall remain in effect until
calculated importer-specific duty
publication of the final results of the
assessment rates for the merchandise in next administrative review.
question based on the ratio of the total
Notification of Interested Parties
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
This notice also serves as a reminder
total entered value of those sales.
to importers of their responsibility
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a
will instruct CBP to liquidate without
certificate regarding the reimbursement
regard to antidumping duties any
of antidumping duties or countervailing
entries for which the assessment rate is
duties prior to liquidation of the
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). relevant entries during this review
To determine whether the duty
period. Failure to comply with this
assessment rates were de minimis, we
requirement could result in the
calculated importer-specific ad valorem Secretary’s presumption that
ratios based on export prices. We will
reimbursement of antidumping duties or
direct CBP to assess the resulting
countervailing duties occurred and the
assessment rates uniformly on all
subsequent assessment of double
entries of that particular importer made
antidumping duties or countervailing
during the period of review. The
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
Department will issue assessment
to parties subject to administrative
instructions directly to CBP within 15
days of publication of these final results protective orders (APOs) or their
responsibility concerning the return or
of review.
destruction of proprietary information
Cash Deposit Requirements
disclosed under APO in accordance
Because we have revoked the order
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
with respect to Viraj’s exports of subject to govern business proprietary
in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’ (Decision
Memorandum) from Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Import Administration, to Joseph A.
Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated July 5,
2005, which is hereby adopted by this
notice. A list of the issues which parties
have 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 review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum which is on file in
the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of
the main Department of Commerce
building. In addition, a complete
version of the decision memorandum
can be accessed directly on the Web at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy
and electronic version of the decision
memorandum are identical in content.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:15 Jul 11, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(I) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues Raised in Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1: Assignment of Antidumping
Rate to Exporter As Well As
Manufacturer
[FR Doc. E5–3688 Filed 7–11–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–427–819)
Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Low Enriched
Uranium from France
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register its preliminary results of
administrative review of the
countervailing duty (CVD) order on low
enriched uranium from France for the
period January 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2003 (see Preliminary
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Low Enriched
Uranium from France, 70 FR 10989
(March 7, 2005) (LEU Preliminary
Results 2003)). The Department has now
completed the administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, the Department has
not revised the net subsidy rate for
Eurodif S.A. (Eurodif)/Compagnie
Generale Des Matieres Nucleaires
(COGEMA), the producer/exporter of
subject merchandise covered by this
review. For further discussion of our
analysis of the comments received for
these final results, see the July 5, 2005,
Issues and Decision Memorandum from
Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini,
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM
12JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39997-39998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3688]
[[Page 39997]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-809]
Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
flanges from India. See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from
India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Intent to Revoke the Order in Part, 70 FR 10953 (March 7, 2005)
(Preliminary Results). This review covers imports of subject
merchandise from Viraj Forgings, Ltd. (Viraj), and Echjay Forgings
Pvt., Ltd. (Echjay). The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2003,
through January 31, 2004.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no
changes in the margin calculations for either Viraj or Echjay.
Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary
results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for Viraj and
Echjay are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of
Review.'' In addition, we are revoking Viraj from the order.
DATES: Effective Date: July 12, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Mike Heaney, or Robert
James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202) 482-2924, (202) 482-4475, or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 7, 2005, the Department published the Preliminary Results.
We invited parties to comment on those preliminary results. On April 6,
2005, we received a case brief from Echjay. No party filed rebuttal
comments.
Period of Review
The POR is February 1, 2003, through January 31, 2004.
Scope of the Order
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 (HTS). Although the HTS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of
whether or not the merchandise is covered by the scope of the order.
Revocation
On March 1, 2004, Viraj requested revocation of the antidumping
duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). In a March 12, 2004 submission Viraj
provided each of the certifications required under 19 CFR 351.222(e).
The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty
order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act.
While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department
must follow in revoking the order, the Department has developed a
procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This
regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation
must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has
sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the
current review period and that the company will not sell subject
merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the
company sold commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the
United States in each of the three years forming the basis of the
request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order
if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the
revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR
351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will
consider: (1) Whether the company in question sold subject merchandise
at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years;
(2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its immediate
reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company,
subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than
NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty
order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2).
In the preliminary results, we found the request from Viraj met all
of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. We continue to find this is the
case for Viraj. With regard to the criteria of 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2),
our final margin calculations show that Viraj sold stainless steel
flanges at only a de minimis level of dumping during the current
period. See dumping margins below. In addition, Viraj sold stainless
steel flanges at not less than NV in the two previous administrative
reviews (i.e., Viraj's dumping margin was either zero or de minimis).
See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 10409 (March 5, 2004) and
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR
42005 (July 16, 2003).
Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Viraj, we
determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the United States in
commercial quantities in this review and each of the two prior
administrative reviews. Additionally, we find that the continued
application of the antidumping duty order is not otherwise necessary to
offset dumping. Therefore, we determine that Viraj qualifies for
revocation of the order on stainless steel flanges pursuant to 19 CFR
351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to merchandise produced
and exported by Viraj should be revoked. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(f)(3), we are terminating the suspension of liquidation for any
of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2004, and will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to refund any cash
deposits for such entries.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in Echjay's brief to this administrative review
are addressed
[[Page 39998]]
in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from
Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, dated July 5, 2005, which is hereby adopted by
this notice. A list of the issues which parties have 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 review and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the
Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce
building. In addition, a complete version of the decision memorandum
can be accessed directly on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The
paper copy and electronic version of the decision memorandum are
identical in content.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine the weighted-average
dumping margins for the period February 1, 2003, through January 31,
2004, to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd.................................... 0.03
Viraj Forgings, Ltd.......................................... 0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated importer-specific
duty assessment rates for the merchandise in question based on the
ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard
to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). To determine whether the duty
assessment rates were de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad
valorem ratios based on export prices. We will direct CBP to assess the
resulting assessment rates uniformly on all entries of that particular
importer made during the period of review. The Department will issue
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication
of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Because we have revoked the order with respect to Viraj's exports
of subject merchandise, we will order CBP to terminate the suspension
of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2004, and to
refund all cash deposits collected for such unliquidated entries.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication, as provided by
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) Since the margin for Echjay
was less than 0.50 percent, and hence de minimis, no cash deposit shall
be required for Echjay; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit 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 investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be that 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 review, any previous
reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be
162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty
Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India; 59 FR 5994
(February 9, 1994).
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
Notification of Interested Parties
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 or countervailing 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 or countervailing
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
duties or countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) or their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which 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 terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(I) of the Tariff Act.
Dated: July 5, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues Raised in Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Assignment of Antidumping Rate to Exporter As Well As
Manufacturer
[FR Doc. E5-3688 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P