Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 30116-30121 [E6-8071]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30116-30121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-875


Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on non-
malleable cast iron pipe fittings (``NMP fittings'') from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period April 1, 2004, through 
March 31, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been 
made below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on 
entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (``POR'') 
for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 25, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Dickerson, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-1778.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 7, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on NMP fittings from the PRC. See 
Antidumping Duty Order: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Filings From the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 16765. On April 1, 2005, the 
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on NMP fittings 
from the PRC for the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 
16799. On April 25, 2005, Myland Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Myland'') and 
Buxin Myland (Foundry) Ltd. (``Buxin'') requested an administrative 
review of their sales to the United States during the POR of 
merchandise produced by Buxin and exported by Myland. The petitioners 
did not request an administrative review of any parties. On May 27, 
2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the 
initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of NMP 
fittings from the PRC for the period April 1, 2004, through March 31, 
2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 30694 
(``Initiation Notice'').
    On May 31, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Myland. Myland submitted its Section A questionnaire 
response on June 20, 2005, and its Sections C and D responses on June 
27, 2005. On December 2, 2005, the Department published a notice in the 
Federal Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results 
of review until May

[[Page 30117]]

1, 2006. See Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe 
Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 72295. From 
December 2005 to April 2005, the Department issued and Myland responded 
to four Section A-D supplemental questionnaires.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2004, through March 31, 2005.

Scope of Order

    The products covered by the order are finished and unfinished non-
malleable cast iron pipe fittings with an inside diameter ranging from 
1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether threaded or un-threaded, regardless of 
industry or proprietary specifications. The subject fittings include 
elbows, ells, tees, crosses, and reducers as well as flanged fittings. 
These pipe fittings are also known as ``cast iron pipe fittings'' or 
``gray iron pipe fittings.'' These cast iron pipe fittings are normally 
produced to ASTM A-126 and ASME B.l6.4 specifications and are threaded 
to ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most building codes require that these 
products are Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified. The scope does 
not include cast iron soil pipe fittings or grooved fittings or grooved 
couplings.
    Fittings that are made out of ductile iron that have the same 
physical characteristics as the gray or cast iron fittings subject to 
the scope above or which have the same physical characteristics and are 
produced to ASME B.16.3, ASME B.16.4, or ASTM A-395 specifications, 
threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications and UL certified, regardless of 
metallurgical differences between gray and ductile iron, are also 
included in the scope of the order. These ductile fittings do not 
include grooved fittings or grooved couplings. Ductile cast iron 
fittings with mechanical joint ends (MJ), or push on ends (PO), or 
flanged ends and produced to the American Water Works Association 
(AWWA) specifications AWWA C110 or AWWA C153 are not included.
    Imports of subject merchandise are currently classifiable in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
numbers 7307.11.00.30, 7307.11.00.60, 7307.19.30.60 and 7307.19.30.85. 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. 
The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
Amended (the ``Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an 
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering 
authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 
7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review (December 18, 2003) (``TRBs 2001-2002''). None of 
the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Therefore, 
we have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of these 
preliminary results.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below 
and in Preliminary Results of Review of the Order on Non-Malleable Cast 
Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Factor 
Valuation, Memorandum from Will Dickerson, Case Analyst, through Robert 
Bolling, Program Manager, Office VIII to the File, dated May 1, 2006 
(``Factor Valuation Memo'').
    On August 9, 2005, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, 
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the 
PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron 
Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy to Wendy Frankel, 
Director, China/NME Group, Office 8: Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries (``Office of Policy Surrogate Countries Memo''), dated August 
9, 2005. Once the countries that are economically comparable to the PRC 
have been identified, we select an appropriate surrogate country by 
determining whether an economically comparable country is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for valuing the 
factors of production are reliable, publicly available and 
contemporaneous. See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004), (``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), 
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
    On December 6, 2005, the Department requested that parties submit 
comments on surrogate country selection. On December 19, 2005, we 
received comments from Myland regarding the selection of a surrogate 
country. On December 20, 2005, we received comments regarding the 
selection of a surrogate country from Anvil International, Inc., and 
Ward Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, ``Anvil''), domestic interested 
parties in this proceeding. Both Anvil and Myland argued that India is 
the appropriate surrogate country. In this case, we have found that 
India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and provides 
contemporaneous publicly available data to value the factors of 
production. See Memo to File through Wendy Frankel and Robert Bolling 
from Will Dickerson: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated 
January 25, 2006 (``Surrogate Country Memo'').
    Thus, the Department used India as a primary surrogate country, 
and, accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value 
Myland's factors of production, when available and appropriate. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal 
Value'' section below and in the Factor Valuation Memo. We have 
obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever 
possible. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value factors of production within 20 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

[[Page 30118]]

Separate Rates

    In an NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and should be 
assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the respondent 
demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto government 
control over its export activities. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic 
of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027-28 (April 30, 1996). Myland provided 
specific separate rates information and stated that it met the 
standards for the assignment of a separate rate. In determining whether 
companies should receive separate rates, the Department focuses its 
attention on the exporter rather than the manufacturer, as our concern 
is the manipulation of dumping margins. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal from 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 56045, 56046 (November 6, 1995). 
In the instant case, the Department considers Myland to be the only 
exporter of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
See ``Export Price'' section, below. Consequently, the Department 
analyzed whether the exporter of the subject merchandise, Myland, 
should receive a separate rate.
    The Department's separate rate test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic, border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, 
quotas, and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are 
imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over 
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government-control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (``Sparklers''), Comment 1 (May 
6, 1991), as modified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). Under the 
separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de 
jure and de facto government control over export activities. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87 and Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's 
Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995).

A. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; and (2) any 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers at Comment 1.
    Myland has placed on the record statements and documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control. In its questionnaire responses, 
Myland reported that it is an independently owned corporation and does 
not have any relationship with national, provincial and local 
governments, including ministries or offices of these governments. See 
Myland's June 20, 2005, Section A questionnaire response (``AQR'') at 
page A-2. Myland also stated that it has complete independence with 
respect to its export activities. See AQR at page A-4. Myland submitted 
sections of the Company Law of the PRC to demonstrate that there is no 
centralized control over its export activities. See AQR at Exhibit A-2. 
Myland also reported that the subject merchandise is not subject to 
export quotas or export control licenses. See AQR at page A-6. 
Furthermore, Myland stated that the local Chamber of Commerce does not 
coordinate any of its export activities. See AQR at page A-7. Myland 
reported that it is required to obtain business licenses for itself and 
Buxin, which are issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 
and the Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau of Nanhai 
District, Fushan City, respectively. See AQR at page A-4. Myland 
reported that both licenses need to be renewed annually. See AQR at 
page A-5. We examined the laws and business licenses which Myland 
provided in its questionnaire responses, and determined that these 
documents demonstrate the absence of de jure control over the export 
activities and provide evidence demonstrating the absence of government 
control associated with Myland's business license.

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587. Therefore, the Department has 
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in 
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of 
government control which would preclude the Department from assigning 
separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in 
evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto government 
control of its export functions: (1) Whether the exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements; (3) whether the 
respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether the 
respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. Id.
    In support of demonstrating an absence of de facto control, Myland 
has asserted the following: (1) Myland established its own export 
prices; (2) Myland negotiated contracts without guidance from any 
government entities or organizations; (3) Myland made its own personnel 
decisions; and (4) Myland retained the proceeds of its export sales and 
independently used profits according to its business needs. See AQR at 
pages A-6 to A-9. Myland's questionnaire responses also indicate that 
it does not coordinate with other exporters in setting prices. See AQR 
at page A-7. This information supports a preliminary finding that there 
is an absence of de facto government control of the export functions of 
Myland. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Myland has met 
the criteria for the application of separate rates.
    The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by 
Myland demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and 
in fact, with respect to its exports of the merchandise under review. 
As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the 
Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate to Myland, the 
exporter which shipped the subject

[[Page 30119]]

merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Date of Sale

    The Department's regulations state that ``[lsqb]i[rsqb]n 
identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as 
recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the ordinary 
course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other than 
the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale.'' See 19 CFR 351.401(i). After examining 
the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation placed on the 
record by Myland, we preliminarily determine that shipment date is the 
most appropriate date of sale for Myland. We made this determination 
based on evidence on the record which demonstrates that Myland's 
shipment date is the date on which the material terms of the sale are 
fixed. Thus, the evidence on the record rebuts the presumption that 
invoice date is the proper date of sale. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Partial Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 42654, 42663 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 2004).

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of NMP fittings to the United States by 
Myland were made at less than NV, we compared export price (``EP'') to 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP 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, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act.
    Myland purchases the subject merchandise from its PRC-based 
affiliated producer, Buxin, via a PRC trading company. Because Buxin is 
affiliated with Myland, the Department views the only function of the 
PRC trading company as that of facilitating the export of subject 
merchandise from the PRC. See Synthetic Indigo From the People's 
Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Thus, the ``resale'' from the PRC 
trading company to Myland does not form the proper basis for EP under 
section 772(a) of the Act. Accordingly, we based EP on Myland's sales 
to unaffiliated U.S. customers in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act. We used EP methodology for all of Myland's U.S. sales, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to an unaffiliated customer in the United 
States prior to importation and because constructed export price was 
not otherwise indicated for those transactions.
    We calculated EP for Myland based on the packed C.I.F. or ex-
factory price to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. In 
order to accurately reflect all of Myland's costs and revenues 
associated with selling subject merchandise, we made adjustments to the 
U.S. sales price for only those sales delivered on a C.I.F. basis, in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For further explanation, see 
Myland Industrial, Ltd. Program Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
Review, dated May 1, 2006 (``Myland Analysis Memo''). For certain sales 
made on a C.I.F. basis, we made additions to the U.S. sales price for 
``less than full container'' surcharges. For C.I.F. sales, we made 
deductions to the U.S. sales price for movement expenses, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included domestic inland 
freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage 
and handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance.
    Myland reported having received revenues and incurred expenses for 
additional U.S. inland freight activities arranged after the conclusion 
of the sale to the unaffiliated party. Based on the circumstances of 
the sales at issue, the Department, however, is only concerned with 
capturing the selling price to the C.I.F. location. We consider any 
extra freight costs in the United States to be a separate transaction 
under the circumstances in this case. Therefore, we did not make 
adjustments to the U.S. sales price for these separately transacted 
U.S. inland freight services. Due to the proprietary nature of this 
discussion, see Myland Analysis Memo for a complete explanation of how 
the Department is treating the additional U.S. inland freight 
activities that Myland reported.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information 
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. 
The Department will base NV on factors of production because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 772(c)(3) of the 
Act, factors of production include: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
factors of production reported by respondents for materials, energy, 
labor and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value factors of 
production, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy 
and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will 
normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. 
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products, Inc. v. United 
States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, when the 
Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices may be 
distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the NME purchase 
prices and use surrogate values to determine the NV. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 Administrative 
Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke 
Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (``TRBs 1998-1999''), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    It is the Department's consistent practice that, where the facts 
developed in the United States or third-country countervailing duty 
findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used 
generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies), it is reasonable for the

[[Page 30120]]

Department to consider that it has particular and objective evidence to 
support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from 
the country granting the subsidies may be subsidized. See TRBs 1998-
1999 and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see 
also, Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-
2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 
2001) (``TRBs 1999-2000''), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; see also China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. 
Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003) 
(``China National'').
    With regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have 
disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may 
be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of 
inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been 
subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries 
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, 
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets 
from these countries may be subsidized. See TRBs 1998-1999 and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We also 
interpret legislative history not to require that we conduct a formal 
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. 
Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-
24. The Department bases its decision on information that is available 
to it at the time it makes its determination. Id. Therefore, we have 
not used prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in calculating 
the Indian import-based surrogate values.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POR. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In 
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, 
and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory where appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms 
for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). See 
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 
For a detailed description of all surrogate values used to value 
Myland's reported factors of production, see Factor Valuation Memo.
    Myland reported that all of Buxin's inputs to production were 
sourced from suppliers in NME countries and paid for in NME currency. 
See Factor Valuation Memo for a listing of these inputs. Therefore, we 
did not use respondents' actual prices for any raw materials purchases. 
In accordance with past practice, we used data from the Indian Import 
Statistics as published by the World Trade Atlas, from Chemical Weekly, 
or from the 2003/2004 Tata Energy Research Institute's Energy Data 
Directory & Yearbook (``TERI Data'') in order to calculate surrogate 
values for Myland's direct and packing material inputs to production. 
See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 67412 
(November 7, 2005); see also Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 67434 (November 7, 2005). In selecting the 
best available information for valuing factors of production in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice 
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are 
non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted 
the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale 
Price Index as published in the International Financial Statistics of 
the International Monetary Fund. See Factor Valuation Memo; see also 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517, 
2522 (January 17, 2006) (``TRBs 2003-2004'').
    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the 
following raw material inputs and packing materials that Buxin used to 
produce the subject merchandise during the POR: Pig Iron, Ductile Iron, 
Scrap Steel, Limestone, Ferro Silicon, Ferro Manganese, Nodulizer, Sand 
(for molds), Firewood, Riverbed Sand (for cores), Furan Resin, Varnish, 
Demolding Powder, Zinc, Vanillin, Wood Crates, Cardboard and Cartons. 
Also, the Department used Chemical Weekly to value Sodium Hydroxide 
(NaOH). See Factor Valuation Memo. The Department valued coking coal 
using TERI Data. Because the value was from June 2004, we adjusted the 
rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
    For furnace labor, casting/mold labor, machining labor, varnishing/
painting/drying labor, zinc plating labor and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate 
as reported on Import Administration's website, Import Library, 
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, 
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. The source of these wage-rate 
data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), 
Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage 
rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or 
types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels 
and types of labor reported by the respondent. See Factor Valuation 
Memo.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharastra 
Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) as it includes a 
wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 
industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 
193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 for the 
``outside industrial areas'' usage category. See TRBs 2003-2004, 71 FR 
at 2522.
    To value electricity and diesel, we used data from the 
International Energy Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). 
Because the values for water, electricity and diesel were not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the values for inflation. See 
Factor Valuation Memo.
    We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. The Department

[[Page 30121]]

determined the best available information for valuing truck freight to 
be from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six 
major points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. 
The Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of 
the POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the 
data accordingly. See Factor Valuation Memo
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), and profit, we used the 2003 financial statements 
of Vishal Malleables Limited (``Vishal'') and the 2003-2004 financial 
statements of Ennore Foundries Limited (``Ennore'') and Bhagwati 
Autocast Limited (``Bhagwati''), all of which are Indian producers of 
comparable merchandise. From this information, we were able to 
determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, 
labor and energy (``ML&E'') costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus 
overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a 
percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. For further 
discussion, see Factor Valuation Memo.

Weighted-Average Dumping Margin

    The weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
           Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter              Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myland..............................................       1.81 [percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See 
19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments should 
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on 
diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
Within 15 days of the completion of this review, the Department will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment 
instructions directly to CBP upon completion of this review. We divided 
the total dumping margins of Myland's reviewed sales to each importer 
by the total quantity of Myland's reviewed sales to that importer to 
calculate the per-kilogram assessment rate. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP 
to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value for the 
subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's entries during the 
POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for Myland will be the rate listed in the final results of review 
(except if the rate for Myland is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 
75.50 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate 
for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    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 these preliminary results of review 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 
CFR 351.221(b).

    Dated: May 1, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-8071 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S