Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 37051-37056 [E6-10219]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
maximum civil penalty that can be
imposed against each Mr. Mangelsen
and BiB is $77,000. Despite the fact that
the U.S. has since lifted the embargo
against Libya, the maximum civil
penalty against Mr. Mangelsen and BiB
is deemed appropriate.
During the course of Mr. Mangelsen
and BiB’s violation of the regulations
and as is apparent from Mr.
Mangelsen’scorrespondence, Mr.
Mangelsen has a blatant disregard for
U.S. export laws and regulations. He
appears to believe he is entitled to avail
himself to privileges of exporting from
the U.S., but acts as though he need not
comply with its laws or regulations. To
aggravate this, Mr. Mangelsen and BiB
have demonstrated a propensity to
disguise their efforts to evade U.S.
export laws and regulations. The clear
disregard for U.S. export laws and
regulations combined with the
propensity to disguise efforts to evade
the same more than justifies issuing the
maximum civil penalty against both Mr.
Mangelsen and BiB.
VIII. Recommended Order
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–881
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 23, 2005, the
Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on malleable iron pipe fittings from the
People’s Republic of China. The period
of review is December 2, 2003, through
November 30, 2004. The administrative
review covers four exporters.
We invited interested parties to
comment on our preliminary results.
Based on our analysis of the comments
received, we made certain changes to
our calculations. The final dumping
margins for this review are listed in the
‘‘Final Results of the Review’’ section,
below.
AGENCY:
June 29, 2006.
[Redacted Section]
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Please be advised that under 15 CFR
766.17(b)(2) the administrative law
judge shall immediately certify the
record, including the original copy of
the recommended decision and order, to
the Under Secretary for review in
accordance with 15 CFR 766.22. Please
be further advised that 15 CFR 766.22 is
included in Attachment A of this
decision.
Juanita H. Chen for Chengde Malleable
Iron General Factory and Langfang
PanNext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd., Ryan A.
Douglas for SCE Development (Canada)
Co., Ltd., or Jennifer Moats for LDR
Industries, Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke
Hardware Co., Ltd., AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: 202–482–1904, 202–482–
1277 and 202–482–5047, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Done and dated May 23, 2006 at Norfolk,
VA.
Peter A. Fitzpatrick,
Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast
Guard.10
[FR Doc. 06–5778 Filed 6–28–06; 8:45 am]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–33–M
3701, the Agency adjusted the maximum civil
penalty for inflation in 1997 from $10,000 to
$11,000. 15 CFR 6.4(a)(1) (1997). In 2000, the
Agency again adjusted it for inflation from $11,000
to $12,000. Id. at § 6.4(a)(6) (2000). It was not until
2003 that the Agency reduced maximum civil
penalty from $12,000 to $11,000, where it has since
remained. Id. at § 6.4(a)(6) (2003–06). While the
conduct in question occurred from 2001 to 2003,
BIS has indicated that it wishes to seek an $11,000
‘‘maximum civil penalty.’’ The undersigned will
therefore treat $11,000 as the maximum civil
penalty for the purpose of this action only.
10 United States Coast Guard Administrative Law
Judges perform adjudicatory functions for the
Bureau of Industry and Security with approval from
the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding between the Coast
Guard and the Bureau of Industry and Security.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
Background
On December 23, 2005, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on malleable iron pipe fittings
(‘‘malleable pipe’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
76234 (December 23, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). In our
Preliminary Results, the Department
noted we would provide the
respondents with additional
opportunity to explain the methodology
used and to correct certain deficiencies
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37051
noted in respondents’ questionnaire
responses and reported data.
Accordingly, the Department received
supplemental questionnaire responses
after the Preliminary Results from
Langfang PanNext Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
and its U.S. affiliate, PanNext Fittings
Corporation (collectively ‘‘Pannext’’), on
January 20, and March 27, 2006, from
SCE Development (Canada) Co. Ltd.
(‘‘SCE’’) on March 7, 2006, from
Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory
(‘‘Chengde’’) on March 14, 2006, and
from LDR Industries Inc. and Beijing Sai
Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. (collectively
‘‘SLK’’) on March 15, May 23, and May
30, 2006.
On April 6, 2006, the Department
published a notice extending the time
limit for the completion of the final
results of this review until June 21,
2006. See Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 17439
(April 6, 2006); see, also, Notice of
Correction to Notice of Extension of
Time Limit for Final Results of
Antidumpnig Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe
Fittings From the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 25148 (April 28, 2006).
On April 12, 2006, Anvil
International, Inc. and Ward
Manufacturing (collectively ‘‘the
petitioners’’) submitted notice that they
did not intend to request a hearing in
this segment. As there were no requests
for a hearing, the Department did not
conduct a hearing in this review.
We invited interested parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results.
On May 1, 2006, the Department
received case briefs from the petitioners,
SLK, and Pannext. On May 8, 2006, we
received rebuttal briefs from the
petitioners, SLK, and Pannext. Chengde
and SCE did not submit case or rebuttal
briefs. On May 24, 2006, the petitioners
submitted comments on SLK’s May 23,
2006, submission; on May 25, 2006, SLK
submitted rebuttal comments. The
Department learned from the
petitioners’ case brief that Chengde
failed to serve them the proprietary
version of its revised March 16, 2006,
supplemental questionnaire response or
the electronic U.S. sales and factors–ofproduction (‘‘FOP’’) databases. Upon
learning of Chengde’s lack of proper
service, the Department instructed
Chengde to serve the petitioners a
complete copy of the proprietary
version of its response, and provided all
interested parties an additional briefing
period to comment on this response. We
did not receive any comments from
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
37052
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
interested parties in response to this
briefing opportunity.
We conducted this review in
accordance with sections 751 and 777 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.213 and
351.221 (2005).
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is
December 2, 2003, through November
30, 2004.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the
products covered are certain malleable
iron pipe fittings, cast, other than
grooved fittings, from the PRC. The
merchandise is currently classifiable
under item numbers 7307.19.90.30,
7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Excluded
from the scope of this order are metal
compression couplings, which are
imported under HTSUS number
7307.19.90.80. A metal compression
coupling consists of a coupling body,
two gaskets, and two compression nuts.
These products range in diameter from
? inch to 2 inches and are carried only
in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the post–
preliminary comments by parties in this
review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the
Administrative Review of Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated June
21, 2006 (‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues which parties raised and to
which we respond in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum follows as an
appendix to this notice. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public
document which is on file in the Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room B–099 of
the main Department building, and is
accessible on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results, we
determined that SLK, Pannext, and SCE
met the criteria for the application of a
separate rate. We preliminarily found
the information provided by Chengde to
be unreliable; as a result, we
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
preliminarily found Chengde did not
qualify for separate rate status and
deemed it to be part of the PRC–wide
entity. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at
76235. However, we provided Chengde
with an additional opportunity to
correct deficiencies in its reported data
following the Preliminary Results. See
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 76240.
Because we find for these final results
that Chengde provided reliable
information, as requested by the
Department, except as noted below in
the ‘‘Facts Otherwise Available’’
section, we must establish whether
Chengde has met the criteria for the
application of a separate rate.
It is the Department’s standard policy
to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise subject to review in a non–
market economy (‘‘NME’’) country a
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate an absence of government
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact
(de facto), with respect to its exports.
See Separate–Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations Involving
Non–Market Economy Countries, Policy
Bulletin 05.1 (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Policy
Bulletin 05.1’’). To establish whether an
exporter is sufficiently independent of
government control to be entitled to a
separate rate, the Department analyzes
the exporter in light of the criteria
established in Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585, 22586–7 (May 2, 1994).
Chengde provided the requested
separate rate information in its
responses to our original and
supplemental questionnaires.
Accordingly, consistent with the Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the
People’s Republic of China, 61 FR
19026, 19027–8 (April 30, 1996), we
performed a separate rates analysis to
determine whether Chengde is
independent from government control.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
One of the respondents placed on the
record a number of documents to
demonstrate absence of de jure control
including the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the
People’s Republic of China,’’ the
‘‘Administrative Regulations of the
People’s Republic of China Governing
the Registration of Legal Corporations,’’
and the ‘‘Law of the People’s Republic
of China on Foreign Capital
Enterprises.’’ See Preliminary Results,
70 FR at 76235. The Department has
analyzed such PRC laws and found that
they establish an absence of de jure
control. See, e.g., Preliminary Results of
New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic
of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7,
2001) (unchanged in the final
determination See Final Results of New
Shipper Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People’s Republic
of China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27,
2001)). We have no information in this
proceeding that would cause us to
reconsider this determination. Thus, we
believe that the evidence on the record
supports a preliminary finding of an
absence of de jure government control
based on: (1) an absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
exporter’s business license; and (2) the
legal authority on the record
decentralizing control over the
respondent.
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 Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s
Republic of China, 63 FR 72255
(December 31, 1998). 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 the 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
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
export sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses. See Policy
Bulletin 05.1 at p. 2.
Chengde reports that it is a privately
owned company controlled by its board
of directors, with no relationship to the
national, provincial, or local
governments. Chengde also reports: (1)
There is no government participation in
the setting of its export prices; (2)
authorized employees and
representatives have the authority to
negotiate and bind the company to sell
merchandise; (3) the owners select the
management of Chengde; and (4) there
are no restrictions on the use of
Chengde’s export revenue, which is
reinvested in capital or distributed to
the owners, or on its use of foreign
currency. Chengde’s questionnaire
responses do not suggest that pricing is
coordinated among exporters. During
our analysis of the information on the
record, we found no information
indicating the existence of government
control. Consequently, we determine for
these final results that Chengde has met
the criteria for the application of a
separate rate.
The PRC–Wide Rate and Use of Facts
Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that if an interested party or any other
person: (A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i), the
administering authority shall, subject to
section 782(d) of the Act, use facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides
that, if the Department determines that
a response to a request for information
does not comply with the request, the
Department shall promptly inform the
person submitting the response of the
nature of the deficiency and shall, to the
extent practicable, provide that person
with an opportunity to remedy or
explain the deficiency in light of the
time limits established for the
completion of the review.
In this administrative review, the
Department issued antidumping
questionnaires to all respondents on
March 14, 2005. We rejected Chengde’s
questionnaire response on April 29,
2005, because of certain filing format
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
and service deficiencies but provided
Chengde with an opportunity to correct
the deficiencies and resubmit its
response, which it did on
May 18, 2005. In addition, before the
Preliminary Results, we issued
supplemental questionnaires to
Chengde on July 20, August 4, and
November 23, 2005. We issued a
supplemental questionnaire to SLK
before the Preliminary Results on July
12, 2005, and allowed SLK to provide
corrections to its database on September
12, 2005. As discussed in our
Preliminary Results, we noted that we
would provide Chengde and SLK with
an additional opportunity to cure
deficiencies after the Preliminary
Results, and would revisit the facts–
available determinations made in the
Preliminary Results for our final results
of review. See Preliminary Results, 70
FR at 76238–76240. Thereafter, Chengde
provided supplemental responses on
December 20, 2005, and March 14, 2006;
SLK provided supplemental responses
and corrections to its database on March
15, May 23, and May 30, 2006.
Accordingly, and pursuant to section
782(d) of the Act, the Department
provided Chengde and SLK with
opportunities to remedy or explain
deficiencies on the record.
The Department has concluded that,
within the meaning of section 776(a)(2)
of the Act, Chengde and SLK failed to
provide certain necessary information in
response to the Department’s
questionnaires and various requests for
information. More specifically, we find
that Chengde and SLK withheld
information or did not provide
information to the Department
pertaining to various factors of
production in the form and manner
requested by the Department as
discussed further below. See section
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The lack of these
necessary data impeded the conduct of
the administrative review consistent
with section 776(a)(2)(c) of the Act. A
portion of the data provided by these
respondents are not reliable or usable
and the use of partial facts otherwise
available is appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use an
inference adverse to the interests of a
party that has failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with the Department’s request for
information. See, also, Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.
Doc. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994); and
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337
F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(instructing that Commerce should
make a showing that ‘‘it is reasonable to
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37053
conclude that less than full cooperation
has been shown’’). In determining if the
application of adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’) is warranted, the Department
may also draw some inferences from a
pattern of behavior. See Reiner Branch
GmbH & Co KG v. U.S., 2026 F.Supp. 2d
1323, 1337 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, to
determine whether the respondent
‘‘cooperated’’ by ‘‘acting to the best of
its ability’’ under section 776(b) of the
Act, the Department also considers the
accuracy and completeness of submitted
information, and whether the
respondent has hindered the calculation
of accurate dumping margins. Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
From Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–53820
(October 16, 1997).
In applying an adverse inference, the
Department must consider that a
respondent may not be rewarded for
failing to cooperate and providing the
agency with ‘‘flawed’’ information. See
NSM Ltd. v. United States, 170 F. Supp.
2d 1280, 1312 (C.I.T. 2001). We believe
that an adverse inference, applied to
Chengde’s and SLK’s FOP data, would
satisfactorily address their insufficient
submissions and provide for a result
that ‘‘would not benefit [these
companies] from [their] lack of
cooperation’’ in the review. Id. at 1312.
Accordingly, as discussed further
below, we assigned Chengde partial
AFA for water and assigned SLK partial
AFA for missing packing FOPs for
certain reported control numbers
(‘‘CONNUMs’’).
We conclude that, within the meaning
of section 776(b) of the Act, Chengde
and SLK failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of their abilities in
complying with the Department’s
requests for information for certain
FOPs and that the use of partial AFA is
appropriate. After repeated
opportunities to provide information,
Chengde’s and SLK’s responses to the
Department’s questions concerning
water and packing FOPs, respectively,
contained significant omissions, and
overall lack of clarity.
For SLK, we determine it is
appropriate to use facts available for
certain CONNUMs for which it reported
contradictory packing information by
reporting different packing FOP usage
rates for the same product. For those
CONNUMs, we applied, as facts
available, the highest usage rate
reported for each packing input of that
CONNUM to calculate the packing
expense for these CONNUMs for the
final results. Because SLK’s response to
our request for a revised packing
database remains inadequate with
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
37054
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
respect to those CONNUMs for which
there are no reported packing FOPs, we
determine that it is appropriate to apply
facts available with an adverse inference
for these CONNUMs. For those
CONNUMS for which SLK did not
provide any packing FOP information,
we applied, as AFA, the highest usage
rate reported for each packing input in
SLK’s response to replace the missing
packing FOPs for these CONNUMs in
SLK’s margin calculations for the final
results. See Memorandum to the File
entitled, ‘‘Analysis for the Final Results
of the Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable
Pipe Iron Fittings from the People’s
Republic of China: LDR Industries, Inc.
and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co.,
Ltd.,’’ dated June 21, 2006 (‘‘SLK Final
Analysis Memorandum’’).
For Chengde, we find that it did not
cooperate to the best of its ability to
report the water used in its production
of subject merchandise. In Chengde’s
May 14, 2006, submission, it reported
all the requested information except for
water, which had been consistently
reported in its previous submissions.
Thus, as a result, the Department
applied the highest reported water value
from Chengde’s previous databases to
all reported CONNUMs it sold to the
United States during the POR as partial
AFA for the final results. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 18;
and Memorandum to the File entitled,
‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Final
Results in the 2003–2004
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable
Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s
Republic of China: Chengde Malleable
Iron General Factory Chengde Final
Analysis Memorandum,’’ dated June 21,
2006 (‘‘Chengde Final Analysis
Memorandum’’).
Finally, consistent with the
Preliminary Results, we continued to
apply neutral facts available for one of
SLK’s suppliers which was unable to
provide the Department with FOP
information due to extraordinary
circumstances. See Preliminary Results,
70 FR at 76238. Because of the
proprietary nature of this discussion, we
can not provide full detail in this
notice.1 We note, however, that for
future reviews of this proceeding, all
respondents, including SLK, must
comply with all requests for information
1 For further information, see Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; see, also, the
proprietary Memorandum from Jennifer Moats to
the File entitled, ‘‘Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co.,
Ltd.’s Missing Factors of Production Information
from Supplier A,’’ dated June 21, 2006, and Exhibit
SD6-4 of SLK’s August 10, 2005, response
(collectively, ‘‘Supplier A Support’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
by the Department and, therefore,
should maintain the appropriate books
and records to comply with these
requests. If respondents are unable to
comply with such requests, the
Department may resort to the use of
AFA absent the information on the
record that is required by the
Department to conduct its proceedings
in accordance with section 776(b) the
Act.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
facts otherwise available and relies on
‘‘secondary information,’’ the
Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information
from independent sources that are
reasonably at its disposal. In the instant
review, the Department is not relying on
secondary information, but rather on
primary information because the
Department is calculating a dumping
margin on the basis of the actual FOP
experience of the respondents.
Therefore, this provision does not
apply.
In addition, because we preliminarily
determined that Chengde was not
entitled to a separate rate and was part
of the PRC–wide entity, the PRC–wide
entity was under review in the
Preliminary Results. Because the PRC–
wide entity failed to provide requested
information in the administrative
review, the Department preliminarily
determined a dumping margin for the
PRC–wide entity using the facts
otherwise available on the record,
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
Furthermore, because we determined
that the PRC–wide entity failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability, we
used an adverse inference in making our
decision, pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act.
For the Preliminary Results, we
revised the PRC–wide rate to 200.24
percent based on SCE’s calculated
margin in the Preliminary Results, as
SCE’s preliminary margin was the
highest margin in this proceeding. For
the final results, because all companies
for which this review was initiated
qualify for separate rates, the PRC–wide
entity is not covered by this review.
Accordingly, the PRC–wide rate will
remain 111.36 percent. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances:
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings
From the People’s Republic of China, 68
FR 61395 (October 28, 2003).
Export Price
For all sales made by Chengde, we
based the U.S. price on export price
(‘‘EP’’), in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, because the first sale
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to an unaffiliated purchaser was made
prior to importation, and constructed
export price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. We
calculated EP based on the packed price
from the exporter to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States. We
deducted foreign brokerage and
handling, foreign inland freight, marine
insurance, ocean freight, and U.S.
inland freight expenses, where
appropriate, from the gross unit price, in
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that, in the case of an NME, the
Department shall determine normal
value (‘‘NV’’) using an FOP
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and 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. Because information on the
record does not permit the calculation
of NV using home–market prices, third–
country prices, or constructed value and
no party has argued otherwise, we
calculated NV based on FOP in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
Other Changes Since the Preliminary
Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received from interested parties and
information on the record of this review,
we made changes to the margin
calculations for all respondents.
Pannext:
Prior to the Preliminary Results,
Pannext erroneously reported entered
value based on a percentage discount of
the U.S. gross price, and not as the
absolute entered value. After the
Preliminary Results, Pannext provided,
in response to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaire, a revised
U.S. sales database reporting entered
value, where known, on a per–unit
(piece) basis. Because we find Pannext’s
revised entered values to be reliable, for
the final results we adjusted Pannext’s
margin calculation program to use its
reported entered values, where
appropriate, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). See Memorandum to the
File entitled, ‘‘Analysis Memorandum
for the Final Results in the 2003–2004
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable
Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s
Republic of China: Langfang PanNext
Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd.,’’ dated June 21,
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
2006 (‘‘Pannext Final Analysis
Memorandum’’).
We corrected certain clerical errors
identified by SLK and the petitioners in
their briefs for the final results. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comments 5, 7, 9, and 19 and SLK Final
Analysis Memorandum.
For other respondent–specific
calculation changes, see Issues and
Decision Memorandum; Chengde Final
Analysis Memorandum; Pannext Final
Analysis Memorandum; ‘‘SLK Final
Analysis Memorandum≥; and
Memorandum to the File entitled,
‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Final
Results of the 2003–2004
Administrative Review of Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Malleable Iron
Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic
of China: SCE Development (Canada)
Co., Ltd.,’’ dated June 21, 2006 (‘‘SCE
Final Analysis Memorandum’’). Public
versions of these memoranda are on file
in the CRU.
Surrogate Values:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
We revalued several surrogate values
used in the Preliminary Results due to
some minor inadvertent data entry
errors. These surrogate values include
brokerage and handling, limestone and
the limestone inflator, cast–iron scrap,
steel scrap, corrugated boxes, tape,
wooden pallets (discussed further
below), nails, plastic bags, zinc dust,
and coal. For a detailed discussion on
the revaluation of these surrogate
values, see Memorandum to the File
entitled, ‘‘2003–2004 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings
from the People’s Republic of China:
Factors Valuations for the Final Results
of the Administrative Review,’’ dated
June 21, 2006.
For the Preliminary Results, we
incorrectly calculated the surrogate
value for wooden pallets in kilograms,
rather than in pieces for certain
respondents. For the final results, we
calculated the surrogate value for
wooden pallets in pieces where
appropriate. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 19; Chengde
Final Analysis Memorandum; SLK Final
Analysis Memorandum; and SCE Final
Analysis Memorandum.
Final Results of the Review
The Department determined that the
following final dumping margins exist
for the period December 2, 2003,
through November 30, 2004:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
notice of final results for all shipments
of malleable pipe from the PRC entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
Chengde Malleable Iron
consumption on or after the publication
General Factory ........
81.64
date, as provided for by section
Langfang Pannext Pipe
Fitting Co., Ltd. .........
6.95 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the above
listed respondents, which each have a
LDR Industries, Inc. and
Beijing Sai Lin Ke
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
Hardware Co., Ltd .....
14.69 be the company–specific rate indicated
SCE Development
above; (2) the cash deposit rates for any
(Canada) Co., Ltd. ....
53.64
PRC–wide rate .............
111.36 other companies that have separate rates
established in the investigation, but
were not reviewed in this segment, will
The Department will disclose
not change; (3) for all other PRC
calculations performed for the final
results to the parties within five days of exporters, the cash deposit rate will be
the date of publication of this notice in
111.36 percent, the PRC–wide rate
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
established in the See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Assessment Rates
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances:
The Department will determine, and
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
From the People’s Republic of China, 68
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
FR 61395 (October 28, 2003); and (4) for
duties on all appropriate entries. The
non–PRC exporters of malleable iron
Department will issue, as appropriate,
pipe fittings from the PRC, the cash
appraisement instructions directly to
deposit rate will be the rate applicable
CBP within 15 days of publication of
to the PRC exporter that supplied that
these final results of administrative
exporter. These deposit rates, when
review. In accordance with 19 CFR
imposed, shall remain in effect until
351.212(b)(1), we calculated an
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
assessment rate for the merchandise
subject to this review. Where the
Notification to Importers
respondent has reported reliable entered
values, we calculated importer (or
This notice serves as a final reminder
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
to importers of their responsibility
aggregating the dumping margins
under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
certificate regarding the reimbursement
importer (or customer) and dividing this of antidumping duties prior to
amount by the total entered value of the liquidation of the relevant entries
sales to each importer (or customer).
during this review period. Pursuant to
Where an importer (or customer)19 CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply
specific ad valorem rate is greater than
with this requirement could result in
de minimis, we will apply the
the Secretary’s presumption that
assessment rate to the entered value of
reimbursement of antidumping duties
the importer’s/customer’s entries during
occurred and the subsequent assessment
the review period. Where we do not
of doubled antidumping duties.
have entered values for all U.S. sales,
This notice also serves as a reminder
we calculated a per–unit assessment
to parties subject to administrative
rate by aggregating the antidumping
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
duties due for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this responsibility concerning the
amount by the total quantity sold to that disposition of proprietary information
importer (or customer). To determine
disclosed under APO, in accordance
whether the duty assessment rates are
with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained
de minimis, in accordance with the
in the APO itself. Timely written
requirement set forth in 19 CFR
notification of the return/destruction of
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
APO materials or conversion to judicial
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios protective order is hereby requested.
based on the estimated entered value.
Failure to comply with the regulations
Where an importer (or customer)and the terms of an APO is a
specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
sanctionable violation.
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
This notice of final results of
liquidate appropriate entries without
administrative review is issued and
regard to antidumping duties.
published in accordance with sections
Cash–Deposit Requirements
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The following cash deposit rates will
be effective upon publication of this
Exporter
SLK:
37055
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Weighted–average
percentage margin
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
37056
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 2006 / Notices
Dated: June 21, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments and Issues in the
Decision Memorandum
Comment 1. SLK: Partial Facts Available
for Missing Factors of Production
Comment 2. SLK: Partial Facts Available
for Missing Purchase Quantities
Comment 3. SLK: By–product Offset for
Scrap
Comment 4. SLK: By–Product Offset for
SLK’s Supplier
Comment 5. SLK: Double Counting of
Steel Scrap and Pig Iron
Comment 6. SLK: Application of
Average Packing FOP
Comment 7. SLK: Calculation of Total
U.S. Price
Comment 8. SLK: Use of Most Recently
Submitted Data
Comment 9. SLK: Treatment of U.S.
Warehousing Expense
Comment 10. Pannext: FOP Data
Comment 11. Pannext: Treatment of
Ocean Freight
Comment 12. Pannext: Calculation of
Entered Value
Comment 13. Pannext: Calculation of
Normal Value Using Facts Available
Comment 14. Chengde: Adverse Facts
Available
Comment 15. Chengde: Recycled Scrap
Comment 16. Treatment of Steel Sand,
Woven Bags, Cooling Liquid, Clay,
Firewood, and Silicon Sand
Comment 17. Freight: Application of
Sigma Rule
Comment 18. Valuation of Water
Comment 19. Wooden Pallet Clerical
Error
[FR Doc. E6–10219 Filed 6–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–507–501)
Certain In–shell Pistachios from the
Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 22, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register its preliminary results in the
countervailing duty (CVD)
administrative review of certain in–shell
pistachios from Iran. See Certain In–
shell Pistachios from the Islamic
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:03 Jun 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
Republic of Iran: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 9091 (Preliminary
Results). The Department has now
completed this administrative review in
accordance with section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Based on information received since
the Preliminary Results and our analysis
of the comments received, the
Department has not revised the net
subsidy rate for Tehran Negah Nima
Trading Company, Inc., trading as Nima
Trading Company (Nima), the
respondent company in this proceeding.
For further discussion of our positions,
see the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’ from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, concerning the ‘‘Final
Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review: Certain In–shell
Pistachios from the Islamic Republic of
Iran’’ (Decision Memorandum) dated
June 22, 2006. The final net subsidy rate
for the reviewed company is listed
below in the section entitled ‘‘Final
Results of Review.’’
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 4014,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 7, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register its
Preliminary Results. We invited
interested parties to comment on these
results. Since the preliminary results,
we received case briefs from petitioners1
on March 24, 2006. Neither Nima nor
the Government of Iran (GOI) submitted
a brief.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), this administrative review
covers only those producers or exporters
for which a review was specifically
requested. Accordingly, this
administrative review covers Nima for
the period of review (POR) January 1,
2004, through December 31, 2004.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the
product covered is in–shell pistachio
nuts from which the hulls have been
removed, leaving the inner hard shells
and edible meat, as currently
1 Petitioners include the California Pistachios
Commission (CPC) and its members and a domestic
interested party, Cal Pure Pistachios, Inc. (Cal Pure).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedules of the United States (HTSUS)
under item number 0802.50.20.00. The
HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
For a discussion of the programs and
the issues raised in the briefs by parties
to this review, see the Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted
by this notice. A listing of the issues
which parties raised and to which we
have responded, which are in the
Decision Memorandum, is attached to
this notice as Appendix I. Parties can
find a complete discussion of the issues
raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit (CRU), room
B–099 of the main Commerce building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the World Wide Web at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Use of Facts Available
The Department has concluded that
the GOI and Nima did not act to the best
of their abilities in providing responses
to the Department, in accordance with
sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act.
Specifically, neither the GOI nor Nima
submitted questionnaire responses to
the Department. By failing to respond to
our questionnaire, Nima and the GOI
have failed to provide information
regarding subsidy programs in Iran, as
well as Nima’s sales, in the manner
explicitly requested by the Department.
Therefore, we must resort to the facts
otherwise available pursuant to section
776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, in
selecting from among the facts available,
the Department has determined that an
adverse inference is warranted,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act
because, despite the Department’s
efforts, Nima and the GOI did not
respond to our questionnaires.
In the instant case, the Department is
relying on information from Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Countervailing Duty
Order: In–shell Pistachios from Iran, 51
FR 8344 (March 11, 1986) (In–shell
Pistachios); Certain In–Shell Pistachios
and Certain Roasted In–Shell Pistachios
from the Islamic Republic of Iran: Final
Results of New Shipper Countervailing
Duty Reviews, 68 FR 4997 (January 31,
2003) (Pistachios New Shipper Reviews);
and Certain In–shell Pistachios from the
Islamic Republic of Iran: Final Results
E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM
29JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 125 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37051-37056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10219]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-881
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 23, 2005, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on malleable iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic
of China. The period of review is December 2, 2003, through November
30, 2004. The administrative review covers four exporters.
We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made
certain changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for this
review are listed in the ``Final Results of the Review'' section,
below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita H. Chen for Chengde Malleable
Iron General Factory and Langfang PanNext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd., Ryan
A. Douglas for SCE Development (Canada) Co., Ltd., or Jennifer Moats
for LDR Industries, Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd., AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1904, 202-482-1277 and
202-482-5047, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 23, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on malleable iron pipe fittings (``malleable
pipe'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). See Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 76234 (December 23, 2005) (``Preliminary Results''). In
our Preliminary Results, the Department noted we would provide the
respondents with additional opportunity to explain the methodology used
and to correct certain deficiencies noted in respondents' questionnaire
responses and reported data. Accordingly, the Department received
supplemental questionnaire responses after the Preliminary Results from
Langfang PanNext Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd. and its U.S. affiliate,
PanNext Fittings Corporation (collectively ``Pannext''), on January 20,
and March 27, 2006, from SCE Development (Canada) Co. Ltd. (``SCE'') on
March 7, 2006, from Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory
(``Chengde'') on March 14, 2006, and from LDR Industries Inc. and
Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. (collectively ``SLK'') on March
15, May 23, and May 30, 2006.
On April 6, 2006, the Department published a notice extending the
time limit for the completion of the final results of this review until
June 21, 2006. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 17439 (April 6,
2006); see, also, Notice of Correction to Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for Final Results of Antidumpnig Duty Administrative Review:
Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of
China, 71 FR 25148 (April 28, 2006).
On April 12, 2006, Anvil International, Inc. and Ward Manufacturing
(collectively ``the petitioners'') submitted notice that they did not
intend to request a hearing in this segment. As there were no requests
for a hearing, the Department did not conduct a hearing in this review.
We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary
Results. On May 1, 2006, the Department received case briefs from the
petitioners, SLK, and Pannext. On May 8, 2006, we received rebuttal
briefs from the petitioners, SLK, and Pannext. Chengde and SCE did not
submit case or rebuttal briefs. On May 24, 2006, the petitioners
submitted comments on SLK's May 23, 2006, submission; on May 25, 2006,
SLK submitted rebuttal comments. The Department learned from the
petitioners' case brief that Chengde failed to serve them the
proprietary version of its revised March 16, 2006, supplemental
questionnaire response or the electronic U.S. sales and factors-of-
production (``FOP'') databases. Upon learning of Chengde's lack of
proper service, the Department instructed Chengde to serve the
petitioners a complete copy of the proprietary version of its response,
and provided all interested parties an additional briefing period to
comment on this response. We did not receive any comments from
[[Page 37052]]
interested parties in response to this briefing opportunity.
We conducted this review in accordance with sections 751 and 777 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213 and
351.221 (2005).
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is December 2, 2003, through
November 30, 2004.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain
malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from
the PRC. The merchandise is currently classifiable under item numbers
7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Excluded from the scope of
this order are metal compression couplings, which are imported under
HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal compression coupling consists of a
coupling body, two gaskets, and two compression nuts. These products
range in diameter from [bdfrac12] inch to 2 inches and are carried only
in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in
this review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Administrative Review of Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From
the People's Republic of China,'' dated June 21, 2006 (``Issues and
Decision Memorandum''), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list
of the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on
file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 of the main
Department building, and is accessible on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results, we determined that SLK, Pannext, and
SCE met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. We
preliminarily found the information provided by Chengde to be
unreliable; as a result, we preliminarily found Chengde did not qualify
for separate rate status and deemed it to be part of the PRC-wide
entity. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 76235. However, we provided
Chengde with an additional opportunity to correct deficiencies in its
reported data following the Preliminary Results. See Preliminary
Results, 70 FR at 76240. Because we find for these final results that
Chengde provided reliable information, as requested by the Department,
except as noted below in the ``Facts Otherwise Available'' section, we
must establish whether Chengde has met the criteria for the application
of a separate rate.
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise subject to review in a non-market economy (``NME'')
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with
respect to its exports. See Separate-Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, Policy Bulletin 05.1 (April 5, 2005) (``Policy
Bulletin 05.1''). To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently
independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate,
the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria
established in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585,
22586-7 (May 2, 1994).
Chengde provided the requested separate rate information in its
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly,
consistent with the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026,
19027-8 (April 30, 1996), we performed a separate rates analysis to
determine whether Chengde is independent from government control.
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.
One of the respondents placed on the record a number of documents
to demonstrate absence of de jure control including the ``Foreign Trade
Law of the People's Republic of China,'' the ``Administrative
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the
Registration of Legal Corporations,'' and the ``Law of the People's
Republic of China on Foreign Capital Enterprises.'' See Preliminary
Results, 70 FR at 76235. The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and
found that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g.,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms
From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001)
(unchanged in the final determination See Final Results of New Shipper
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of
China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001)). We have no information in this
proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. Thus,
we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary
finding of an absence of de jure government control based on: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's
business license; and (2) the legal authority on the record
decentralizing control over the respondent.
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
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December
31, 1998). 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 the 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
[[Page 37053]]
export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses. See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at p. 2.
Chengde reports that it is a privately owned company controlled by
its board of directors, with no relationship to the national,
provincial, or local governments. Chengde also reports: (1) There is no
government participation in the setting of its export prices; (2)
authorized employees and representatives have the authority to
negotiate and bind the company to sell merchandise; (3) the owners
select the management of Chengde; and (4) there are no restrictions on
the use of Chengde's export revenue, which is reinvested in capital or
distributed to the owners, or on its use of foreign currency. Chengde's
questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated
among exporters. During our analysis of the information on the record,
we found no information indicating the existence of government control.
Consequently, we determine for these final results that Chengde has met
the criteria for the application of a separate rate.
The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
or any other person: (A) withholds information that has been requested
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section
782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, the Department shall promptly inform the person
submitting the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to
the extent practicable, provide that person with an opportunity to
remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits
established for the completion of the review.
In this administrative review, the Department issued antidumping
questionnaires to all respondents on March 14, 2005. We rejected
Chengde's questionnaire response on April 29, 2005, because of certain
filing format and service deficiencies but provided Chengde with an
opportunity to correct the deficiencies and resubmit its response,
which it did on
May 18, 2005. In addition, before the Preliminary Results, we
issued supplemental questionnaires to Chengde on July 20, August 4, and
November 23, 2005. We issued a supplemental questionnaire to SLK before
the Preliminary Results on July 12, 2005, and allowed SLK to provide
corrections to its database on September 12, 2005. As discussed in our
Preliminary Results, we noted that we would provide Chengde and SLK
with an additional opportunity to cure deficiencies after the
Preliminary Results, and would revisit the facts-available
determinations made in the Preliminary Results for our final results of
review. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 76238-76240. Thereafter,
Chengde provided supplemental responses on December 20, 2005, and March
14, 2006; SLK provided supplemental responses and corrections to its
database on March 15, May 23, and May 30, 2006. Accordingly, and
pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department provided Chengde
and SLK with opportunities to remedy or explain deficiencies on the
record.
The Department has concluded that, within the meaning of section
776(a)(2) of the Act, Chengde and SLK failed to provide certain
necessary information in response to the Department's questionnaires
and various requests for information. More specifically, we find that
Chengde and SLK withheld information or did not provide information to
the Department pertaining to various factors of production in the form
and manner requested by the Department as discussed further below. See
section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. The lack of these necessary data
impeded the conduct of the administrative review consistent with
section 776(a)(2)(c) of the Act. A portion of the data provided by
these respondents are not reliable or usable and the use of partial
facts otherwise available is appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an
inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the
Department's request for information. See, also, Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.
Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994); and Nippon Steel Corp. v. United
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (instructing that
Commerce should make a showing that ``it is reasonable to conclude that
less than full cooperation has been shown''). In determining if the
application of adverse facts available (``AFA'') is warranted, the
Department may also draw some inferences from a pattern of behavior.
See Reiner Branch GmbH & Co KG v. U.S., 2026 F.Supp. 2d 1323, 1337 (CIT
2002). Furthermore, to determine whether the respondent ``cooperated''
by ``acting to the best of its ability'' under section 776(b) of the
Act, the Department also considers the accuracy and completeness of
submitted information, and whether the respondent has hindered the
calculation of accurate dumping margins. Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
In applying an adverse inference, the Department must consider that
a respondent may not be rewarded for failing to cooperate and providing
the agency with ``flawed'' information. See NSM Ltd. v. United States,
170 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1312 (C.I.T. 2001). We believe that an adverse
inference, applied to Chengde's and SLK's FOP data, would
satisfactorily address their insufficient submissions and provide for a
result that ``would not benefit [these companies] from [their] lack of
cooperation'' in the review. Id. at 1312. Accordingly, as discussed
further below, we assigned Chengde partial AFA for water and assigned
SLK partial AFA for missing packing FOPs for certain reported control
numbers (``CONNUMs'').
We conclude that, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act,
Chengde and SLK failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their
abilities in complying with the Department's requests for information
for certain FOPs and that the use of partial AFA is appropriate. After
repeated opportunities to provide information, Chengde's and SLK's
responses to the Department's questions concerning water and packing
FOPs, respectively, contained significant omissions, and overall lack
of clarity.
For SLK, we determine it is appropriate to use facts available for
certain CONNUMs for which it reported contradictory packing information
by reporting different packing FOP usage rates for the same product.
For those CONNUMs, we applied, as facts available, the highest usage
rate reported for each packing input of that CONNUM to calculate the
packing expense for these CONNUMs for the final results. Because SLK's
response to our request for a revised packing database remains
inadequate with
[[Page 37054]]
respect to those CONNUMs for which there are no reported packing FOPs,
we determine that it is appropriate to apply facts available with an
adverse inference for these CONNUMs. For those CONNUMS for which SLK
did not provide any packing FOP information, we applied, as AFA, the
highest usage rate reported for each packing input in SLK's response to
replace the missing packing FOPs for these CONNUMs in SLK's margin
calculations for the final results. See Memorandum to the File
entitled, ``Analysis for the Final Results of the Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable Pipe Iron Fittings from the
People's Republic of China: LDR Industries, Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke
Hardware Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 21, 2006 (``SLK Final Analysis
Memorandum'').
For Chengde, we find that it did not cooperate to the best of its
ability to report the water used in its production of subject
merchandise. In Chengde's May 14, 2006, submission, it reported all the
requested information except for water, which had been consistently
reported in its previous submissions. Thus, as a result, the Department
applied the highest reported water value from Chengde's previous
databases to all reported CONNUMs it sold to the United States during
the POR as partial AFA for the final results. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 18; and Memorandum to the File entitled,
``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003-2004
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable Iron
Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Chengde Malleable
Iron General Factory Chengde Final Analysis Memorandum,'' dated June
21, 2006 (``Chengde Final Analysis Memorandum'').
Finally, consistent with the Preliminary Results, we continued to
apply neutral facts available for one of SLK's suppliers which was
unable to provide the Department with FOP information due to
extraordinary circumstances. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 76238.
Because of the proprietary nature of this discussion, we can not
provide full detail in this notice.\1\ We note, however, that for
future reviews of this proceeding, all respondents, including SLK, must
comply with all requests for information by the Department and,
therefore, should maintain the appropriate books and records to comply
with these requests. If respondents are unable to comply with such
requests, the Department may resort to the use of AFA absent the
information on the record that is required by the Department to conduct
its proceedings in accordance with section 776(b) the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For further information, see Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1; see, also, the proprietary Memorandum from Jennifer
Moats to the File entitled, ``Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co.,
Ltd.'s Missing Factors of Production Information from Supplier A,''
dated June 21, 2006, and Exhibit SD6-4 of SLK's August 10, 2005,
response (collectively, ``Supplier A Support'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary information,''
the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its
disposal. In the instant review, the Department is not relying on
secondary information, but rather on primary information because the
Department is calculating a dumping margin on the basis of the actual
FOP experience of the respondents. Therefore, this provision does not
apply.
In addition, because we preliminarily determined that Chengde was
not entitled to a separate rate and was part of the PRC-wide entity,
the PRC-wide entity was under review in the Preliminary Results.
Because the PRC-wide entity failed to provide requested information in
the administrative review, the Department preliminarily determined a
dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using the facts otherwise
available on the record, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
Furthermore, because we determined that the PRC-wide entity failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability, we used an adverse inference in
making our decision, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
For the Preliminary Results, we revised the PRC-wide rate to 200.24
percent based on SCE's calculated margin in the Preliminary Results, as
SCE's preliminary margin was the highest margin in this proceeding. For
the final results, because all companies for which this review was
initiated qualify for separate rates, the PRC-wide entity is not
covered by this review. Accordingly, the PRC-wide rate will remain
111.36 percent. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings
From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003).
Export Price
For all sales made by Chengde, we based the U.S. price on export
price (``EP''), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because
the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to
importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the
packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in
the United States. We deducted foreign brokerage and handling, foreign
inland freight, marine insurance, ocean freight, and U.S. inland
freight expenses, where appropriate, from the gross unit price, in
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME,
the Department shall determine normal value (``NV'') using an FOP
methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and 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. Because information on the record does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV
based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
Other Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received from interested parties
and information on the record of this review, we made changes to the
margin calculations for all respondents.
Pannext:
Prior to the Preliminary Results, Pannext erroneously reported
entered value based on a percentage discount of the U.S. gross price,
and not as the absolute entered value. After the Preliminary Results,
Pannext provided, in response to the Department's supplemental
questionnaire, a revised U.S. sales database reporting entered value,
where known, on a per-unit (piece) basis. Because we find Pannext's
revised entered values to be reliable, for the final results we
adjusted Pannext's margin calculation program to use its reported
entered values, where appropriate, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). See Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Analysis
Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003-2004 Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the
People's Republic of China: Langfang PanNext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd.,''
dated June 21,
[[Page 37055]]
2006 (``Pannext Final Analysis Memorandum'').
SLK:
We corrected certain clerical errors identified by SLK and the
petitioners in their briefs for the final results. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comments 5, 7, 9, and 19 and SLK Final Analysis
Memorandum.
For other respondent-specific calculation changes, see Issues and
Decision Memorandum; Chengde Final Analysis Memorandum; Pannext Final
Analysis Memorandum; ``SLK Final Analysis Memorandum; and
Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final
Results of the 2003-2004 Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty
Order on Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's
Republic of China: SCE Development (Canada) Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 21,
2006 (``SCE Final Analysis Memorandum''). Public versions of these
memoranda are on file in the CRU.
Surrogate Values:
We revalued several surrogate values used in the Preliminary
Results due to some minor inadvertent data entry errors. These
surrogate values include brokerage and handling, limestone and the
limestone inflator, cast-iron scrap, steel scrap, corrugated boxes,
tape, wooden pallets (discussed further below), nails, plastic bags,
zinc dust, and coal. For a detailed discussion on the revaluation of
these surrogate values, see Memorandum to the File entitled, ``2003-
2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China:
Factors Valuations for the Final Results of the Administrative
Review,'' dated June 21, 2006.
For the Preliminary Results, we incorrectly calculated the
surrogate value for wooden pallets in kilograms, rather than in pieces
for certain respondents. For the final results, we calculated the
surrogate value for wooden pallets in pieces where appropriate. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19; Chengde Final Analysis
Memorandum; SLK Final Analysis Memorandum; and SCE Final Analysis
Memorandum.
Final Results of the Review
The Department determined that the following final dumping margins
exist for the period December 2, 2003, through November 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter percentage margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory.............. 81.64
Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd.............. 6.95
LDR Industries, Inc. and Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware 14.69
Co., Ltd...........................................
SCE Development (Canada) Co., Ltd................... 53.64
PRC-wide rate....................................... 111.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed for the final
results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department will issue, as appropriate,
appraisement instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication
of these final results of administrative review. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rate for the merchandise subject to this review.
Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered
value of the sales to each importer (or customer). Where an importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we
will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/
customer's entries during the review period. Where we do not have
entered values for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per-unit assessment
rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to
each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total
quantity sold to that importer (or customer). To determine whether the
duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered
value. Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero
or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries
without regard to antidumping duties.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication
of this notice of final results for all shipments of malleable pipe
from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of
the Act: (1) For the above listed respondents, which each have a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate
indicated above; (2) the cash deposit rates for any other companies
that have separate rates established in the investigation, but were not
reviewed in this segment, will not change; (3) for all other PRC
exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 111.36 percent, the PRC-wide
rate established in the See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe
Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28,
2003); and (4) for non-PRC exporters of malleable iron pipe fittings
from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit rates, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.402(f)(3), failure to comply with this requirement could result in
the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and as explained in the APO
itself. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice of final results of administrative review is issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
[[Page 37056]]
Dated: June 21, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments and Issues in the Decision Memorandum
Comment 1. SLK: Partial Facts Available for Missing Factors of
Production
Comment 2. SLK: Partial Facts Available for Missing Purchase Quantities
Comment 3. SLK: By-product Offset for Scrap
Comment 4. SLK: By-Product Offset for SLK's Supplier
Comment 5. SLK: Double Counting of Steel Scrap and Pig Iron
Comment 6. SLK: Application of Average Packing FOP
Comment 7. SLK: Calculation of Total U.S. Price
Comment 8. SLK: Use of Most Recently Submitted Data
Comment 9. SLK: Treatment of U.S. Warehousing Expense
Comment 10. Pannext: FOP Data
Comment 11. Pannext: Treatment of Ocean Freight
Comment 12. Pannext: Calculation of Entered Value
Comment 13. Pannext: Calculation of Normal Value Using Facts Available
Comment 14. Chengde: Adverse Facts Available
Comment 15. Chengde: Recycled Scrap
Comment 16. Treatment of Steel Sand, Woven Bags, Cooling Liquid, Clay,
Firewood, and Silicon Sand
Comment 17. Freight: Application of Sigma Rule
Comment 18. Valuation of Water
Comment 19. Wooden Pallet Clerical Error
[FR Doc. E6-10219 Filed 6-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
