Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 44560-44563 [E5-4128]

Download as PDF 44560 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–849] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective August 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Carrie Blozy, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3207, and (202) 482–5403 respectively. SUMMARY: In response to a request by Beijing Shougang Xingang Co., Ltd., and Beijing Alliance of Xingang Science and Trade Co., Ltd., (collectively ‘‘Shougang’’), an exporter of subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on cut-to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘CTL Plate’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). No other interested party requested a review of Shougang. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is November 3, 2003, through October 31, 2004. On July 5, 2005, Shougang withdrew its request for a review. The Department is now rescinding the administrative review of Shougang. AGENCY: Background On November 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 63359 (November 1, 2004). On November 29, 2004, Shougang requested an administrative review of its sales and shipments to the United States during the POR. On December 27, 2004, the Department published a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of CTL Plate from the PRC for the period November 3, 2003, through October 31, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 77181 (December 27, 2004). On July 5, 2005, Shougang withdrew its request for an administrative review. VerDate jul<14>2003 15:22 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 Rescission of Review The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. It further states that the Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary finds it reasonable to do so. Shougang withdrew its request for review after the 90-day deadline; however, the Department finds it reasonable to extend the time limit by which a party may withdraw its request for review in the instant proceeding. The Department finds it reasonable to extend the withdrawal deadline because the Department has not yet devoted considerable time and resources to this review.1 Shougang was the only party to request the review, and has withdrawn that request. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of the antidumping duty order on CTL Plate from the PRC covering the period November 3, 2003, through October 31, 2004. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this recession. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as a final 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 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 that is subject to sanction. 1 After analyzing Shougang’s questionnaire response, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shougang. Shougang did not respond to the supplemental questionnaire. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: July 27, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5–4130 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–533–809 Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India manufactured by Hilton Forge (Hilton). The period of review (POR) covers February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. We preliminarily determine that Hilton made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) in the United States during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise for which the importer–specific assessment rates are above de minimis. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument 1) a statement of the issues and 2) a brief summary of the argument. EFFECTIVE DATE: August 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker 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 or (202) 482–0649, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India. See Amended Final Determination and E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Notices Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 59 FR 5994, (February 9, 1994). On August 31, 2004, Hilton requested that the Department initiate a new shipper review for the period February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. We initiated the review on October 6, 2004. See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review. On March 28, 2005, we extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this new shipper review to no later than July 27, 2005. See Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 70 FR 15615 (March 28, 2005). For our analysis of the bona fides of Hilton’s sales, see Memorandum to Richard Weible, Re: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the New Shipper Review of Hilton Forge, dated July 27, 2005, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B–099 of the main Commerce Building. 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. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), we verified information provided by Hilton from June 6, 2005, through June 10, 2005, using standard VerDate jul<14>2003 15:22 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 verification procedures, the examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of the verification report, on file in the CRU located in room B–099 in the main Department of Commerce building. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States by Hilton were made at less than NV, we compared the U.S. export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted–average prices for NV and compared these to the prices of individual EP transactions. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered all products described by the Scope of the Order section, above, which were produced and sold by Hilton in the home market, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate comparisons to U.S. sales. We determined that Hilton had sufficient sales of identical product in the home market; therefore, we did not need to resort to comparisons based on either sales of similar merchandise or constructed value. We made comparisons using the following five model match characteristics: (1) Grade; (2) Type; (3) Size; (4) Pressure rating; (5) Finish. Export Price and Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, EP is defined 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 the 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. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, constructed export price (CEP) is 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, as adjusted under subsections (c) and (d). For Hilton’s sales to the United States, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44561 Tariff Act because its merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated EP based on the prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed CIF prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, and export inspection fees. We denied Hilton’s claimed adjustment for duty drawback. Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that EP or CEP shall be increased by ‘‘the amount of any import duties imposed by the country of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States.’’ The Department determines that an adjustment to U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when a company can demonstrate that there is (i) a sufficient link between the import duty and the rebate, and (ii) sufficient imports of the imported material inputs to account for the duty drawback received for the export of the manufactured product (the so–called ‘‘two–prong test’’). See Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999); see also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 2d 656 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (Commerce’s rejection of claimed adjustments to either price or cost for Indian duty drawback sustained; remanded on other grounds). In a supplemental questionnaire the Department requested that Hilton establish its entitlement to the duty drawback adjustment by providing evidence that its duty drawback claim met the two–pronged test described above. See April 5, 2005 Supplemental Questionnaire at 4. Hilton’s response in its April 21, 2005, submission failed to provide evidence of either point. Furthermore, the Department presented Hilton with another opportunity to establish its entitlement to this claim at the verification in June 2005, and Hilton again failed to do so. Therefore, we have denied the duty drawback adjustment in these preliminary results. Normal Value A. Viability In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1 44562 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Notices calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), we compared Hilton’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. (We found no reason to determine that quantity was not the appropriate basis for these comparisons, so value was not used. See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2).) Based on Hilton’s reported home market and U.S. sales quantities, we determine that Hilton had a viable home market. Therefore, we based NV on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. We based our comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume of home market sales on reported stainless steel flange weight, rather than on number of pieces. The record demonstrates that there can be large differences between the weight (and corresponding cost and price) of stainless steel flanges based on relative sizes, so comparisons of aggregate data would be distorted for these products if volume comparisons were based on the number of pieces. B. Price–to-Price Comparisons As indicated above, we compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in India. As noted, we considered stainless steel flanges identical based on the following five criteria: grade, type, size, pressure rating, and finish. We made adjustments for differences in packing costs between the two markets and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. Finally, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or CEP. The NV LOT is that of the starting–price sales in the home 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 an affiliated importer after the deductions VerDate jul<14>2003 15:22 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 required under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison–market sales are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison–market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP–offset provision). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 1997). In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from Hilton about the marketing stages involved in its U.S. and home market sales, including a description of its selling activities in the respective markets. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports differences in levels of trade the functions and activities should be dissimilar. Hilton reported one channel of distribution and one LOT in the home market contending that all home market sales were to trading companies on a door–delivered basis. See Hilton’s November 22, 2004, submission, pp. B– 10 and B–19, and its April 21, 2005, submission, p. 7. After examining the record evidence provided by Hilton, we preliminarily determine that a single LOT exists in the home market. Hilton further contends it provided substantially the same level of customer support on its U.S. EP sales to trading companies/importers as it provided on its home market sales to trading companies. This support included manufacturing to order, and making arrangements for freight and insurance. See Hilton’s April 21, 2005 submission at 2. The Department has determined that we will find sales to be at the same LOT when the selling functions performed for each customer class are sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351.412 (c)(2). We find Hilton performed PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 virtually the same level of customer support services on its U.S. EP sales as it did on its home market sales. The record evidence supports a finding that in both markets and in all channels of distribution Hilton performs essentially the same level of services. Therefore, based on our analysis of the selling functions performed on EP sales in the United States, and its sales in the home market, we determine that the EP and the starting price of home market sales represent the same stage in the marketing process, and are thus at the same LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that no level of trade adjustment is appropriate for Hilton. Currency Conversions We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our review we preliminarily find that a weighted– average dumping margin of 0.89 percent exists for Hilton for the period February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of new shipper review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results. E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 3, 2005 / Notices Assessment Rates DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department shall determine, and the CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer–specific assessment rates based on the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR divided by the total quantity (in kilograms), of the examined sales. Upon completion of this review, where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we shall instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. International Trade Administration Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rate will be effective upon publication of the final results of this new shipper review for shipments of stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act. For subject merchandise produced and exported by Hilton, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero. This cash deposit requirement, 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) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act. Dated: July 27, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5–4128 Filed 8–2–03; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate jul<14>2003 18:05 Aug 02, 2005 Jkt 205001 [A–570–831] Fresh Garlic From the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective August 3, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sochieta Moth or Brian Ledgerwood, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0168 and (202) 482–3836, respectively. AGENCY: Background The Department of Commerce (the Department) published an antidumping duty on fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China on November 16, 1994. See Antidumping Duty Order: Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 28462. On December 27, 2004, the Department published the Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 77181, in which it initiated an administrative review of this order for the period November 1, 2003, through October 31, 2004, for nineteen exporters: Clipper Manufacturing Ltd.; Fook Huat Tong Kee Pte., Ltd.; H&T Trading Company; Heze Ever-Best International Trade Co., Ltd.; Huaiyang Hongda Dehydrated Vegetable Company; Jinan Yipin Corporation, Ltd.; Jining Trans-High Trading Co., Ltd.; Jining Yun Feng Agriculture Products Co., Ltd.; Jinxiang Dong Yun Freezing Storage Co., Ltd.; Jinxiang Hongyu Freezing and Storing Co., Ltd.; Jinxiang Shanyang Freezing and Storage Co., Ltd.; Linshu Dading Private Agricultural Products Co., Ltd.; Pizhou Guangda Import and Export Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Ever Rich Trade Company; Shanghai LJ International Trading Co., Ltd.; Sunny Import & Export Limited; Taian Ziyang Food Co., Ltd.; Weifang Shennong Foodstuff Co., Ltd.; and Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Limited. Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the Department will issue the preliminary results of an administrative PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44563 review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act provides further that the Department may extend that 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. The Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results by the current deadline of August 2, 2005. There are a number of complex factual and legal questions related to the calculation of the antidumping margins in this administrative review, in particular the analysis of the valuation of the factors of production. We require additional time to issue supplemental questionnaires, review the responses, and conduct verification if necessary. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for the preliminary results by 100 days, until no later than November 10, 2005. We are issuing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: July 28, 2005. Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5–4127 Filed 8–2–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Duty Drawback Practice in Antidumping Proceedings Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATE: August 3, 2005. ACTION: Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: SUMMARY: On June 30, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments regarding its practice with respect to duty drawback adjustments to export price in antidumping proceedings (70 FR 37764). The Department has decided to extend the comment period by one week, making the new deadline for the submission of public comments August 15, 2005. Written comments (original and six copies) should be sent to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM 03AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44560-44563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4128]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-809


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a 
new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged 
stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India 
manufactured by Hilton Forge (Hilton). The period of review (POR) 
covers February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. We preliminarily 
determine that Hilton made sales of subject merchandise at less than 
normal value (NV) in the United States during the POR.
    If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
this new shipper review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject 
merchandise for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above 
de minimis.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with the argument 1) a statement of the issues and 2) a brief 
summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  August 3, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker 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 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on stainless steel flanges from India. See Amended Final 
Determination and

[[Page 44561]]

Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from 
India, 59 FR 5994, (February 9, 1994). On August 31, 2004, Hilton 
requested that the Department initiate a new shipper review for the 
period February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004. We initiated the review 
on October 6, 2004. See Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review.
    On March 28, 2005, we extended the time limit for the preliminary 
results of this new shipper review to no later than July 27, 2005. See 
Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Extension of Time Limit for 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 70 FR 15615 
(March 28, 2005).
    For our analysis of the bona fides of Hilton's sales, see 
Memorandum to Richard Weible, Re: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the 
New Shipper Review of Hilton Forge, dated July 27, 2005, which is on 
file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce 
Building.

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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Tariff Act), we verified information provided by Hilton 
from June 6, 2005, through June 10, 2005, using standard verification 
procedures, the examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial 
records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public 
version of the verification report, on file in the CRU located in room 
B-099 in the main Department of Commerce building.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United 
States by Hilton were made at less than NV, we compared the U.S. export 
price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average 
prices for NV and compared these to the prices of individual EP 
transactions.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all products described by the Scope of the Order section, above, which 
were produced and sold by Hilton in the home market, to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate comparisons to U.S. 
sales. We determined that Hilton had sufficient sales of identical 
product in the home market; therefore, we did not need to resort to 
comparisons based on either sales of similar merchandise or constructed 
value. We made comparisons using the following five model match 
characteristics: (1) Grade; (2) Type; (3) Size; (4) Pressure rating; 
(5) Finish.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act, EP is defined 
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 the 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. In accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Tariff Act, constructed export price (CEP) is 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, as adjusted under 
subsections (c) and (d). For Hilton's sales to the United States, we 
used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Tariff Act because its 
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior 
to importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts 
of record.
    We calculated EP based on the prices charged to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the date of invoice 
as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed CIF prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff 
Act, including foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 
international freight, marine insurance, and export inspection fees.
    We denied Hilton's claimed adjustment for duty drawback. Section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act provides that EP or CEP shall be 
increased by ``the amount of any import duties imposed by the country 
of exportation which have been rebated, or which have not been 
collected, by reason of the exportation of the subject merchandise to 
the United States.'' The Department determines that an adjustment to 
U.S. price for claimed duty drawback is appropriate when a company can 
demonstrate that there is (i) a sufficient link between the import duty 
and the rebate, and (ii) sufficient imports of the imported material 
inputs to account for the duty drawback received for the export of the 
manufactured product (the so-called ``two-prong test''). See Rajinder 
Pipes, Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int'l 
Trade 1999); see also Viraj Group, Ltd. v. United States, 162 F. Supp. 
2d 656 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001) (Commerce's rejection of claimed 
adjustments to either price or cost for Indian duty drawback sustained; 
remanded on other grounds).
    In a supplemental questionnaire the Department requested that 
Hilton establish its entitlement to the duty drawback adjustment by 
providing evidence that its duty drawback claim met the two-pronged 
test described above. See April 5, 2005 Supplemental Questionnaire at 
4. Hilton's response in its April 21, 2005, submission failed to 
provide evidence of either point. Furthermore, the Department presented 
Hilton with another opportunity to establish its entitlement to this 
claim at the verification in June 2005, and Hilton again failed to do 
so. Therefore, we have denied the duty drawback adjustment in these 
preliminary results.

Normal Value

A. Viability
    In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for

[[Page 44562]]

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five 
percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
during the POR), we compared Hilton's volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise. (We found no reason to determine that quantity was not the 
appropriate basis for these comparisons, so value was not used. See 
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2).) Based 
on Hilton's reported home market and U.S. sales quantities, we 
determine that Hilton had a viable home market. Therefore, we based NV 
on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
    We based our comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume 
of home market sales on reported stainless steel flange weight, rather 
than on number of pieces. The record demonstrates that there can be 
large differences between the weight (and corresponding cost and price) 
of stainless steel flanges based on relative sizes, so comparisons of 
aggregate data would be distorted for these products if volume 
comparisons were based on the number of pieces.
B. Price-to-Price Comparisons
    As indicated above, we compared U.S. sales with contemporaneous 
sales of the foreign like product in India. As noted, we considered 
stainless steel flanges identical based on the following five criteria: 
grade, type, size, pressure rating, and finish. We made adjustments for 
differences in packing costs between the two markets and for movement 
expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff 
Act. Finally, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances of sale 
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 
CFR 351.410. We made COS adjustments by deducting home market direct 
selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to 
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or CEP. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the home 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 an affiliated importer after the deductions required under 
section 772(d) of the Tariff Act.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or 
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level 
is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no 
basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV 
and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Tariff Act (the CEP-offset provision). See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 
19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from Hilton about the marketing stages involved in its U.S. 
and home market sales, including a description of its selling 
activities in the respective markets. Generally, if the reported levels 
of trade are the same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and 
activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party 
reports differences in levels of trade the functions and activities 
should be dissimilar.
    Hilton reported one channel of distribution and one LOT in the home 
market contending that all home market sales were to trading companies 
on a door-delivered basis. See Hilton's November 22, 2004, submission, 
pp. B-10 and B-19, and its April 21, 2005, submission, p. 7. After 
examining the record evidence provided by Hilton, we preliminarily 
determine that a single LOT exists in the home market.
    Hilton further contends it provided substantially the same level of 
customer support on its U.S. EP sales to trading companies/importers as 
it provided on its home market sales to trading companies. This support 
included manufacturing to order, and making arrangements for freight 
and insurance. See Hilton's April 21, 2005 submission at 2. The 
Department has determined that we will find sales to be at the same LOT 
when the selling functions performed for each customer class are 
sufficiently similar. See 19 CFR 351.412 (c)(2). We find Hilton 
performed virtually the same level of customer support services on its 
U.S. EP sales as it did on its home market sales.
    The record evidence supports a finding that in both markets and in 
all channels of distribution Hilton performs essentially the same level 
of services. Therefore, based on our analysis of the selling functions 
performed on EP sales in the United States, and its sales in the home 
market, we determine that the EP and the starting price of home market 
sales represent the same stage in the marketing process, and are thus 
at the same LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that no level of 
trade adjustment is appropriate for Hilton.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates in effect 
on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review we preliminarily find that a weighted-
average dumping margin of 0.89 percent exists for Hilton for the period 
February 1, 2004, through July 31, 2004.
    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 
days of publication. See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 
CFR 351.310(d).
    Interested parties may submit case briefs or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of new shipper review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 
comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may 
be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with the argument 1) a statement of the issue, 2) a brief 
summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. Further, 
parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with 
an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on 
diskette. The Department will issue final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 
days of publication of these preliminary results.

[[Page 44563]]

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the total amount 
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the 
POR divided by the total quantity (in kilograms), of the examined 
sales. Upon completion of this review, where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we shall instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries 
of subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rate will be effective upon publication 
of the final results of this new shipper review for shipments of 
stainless steel flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act. For subject 
merchandise produced and exported by Hilton, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if 
the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, the cash 
deposit rate will be zero. This cash deposit requirement, 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) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: July 27, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4128 Filed 8-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S