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 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 http:// 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 http://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 http://
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