Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 35970-35974 [E7-12750]

Download as PDF 35970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 126 / Monday, July 2, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–583–816] Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen) and from Flowline Division of Markovitz Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline Division), Gerlin, Inc., Shaw Alloy Piping Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc., (collectively, petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) from Taiwan. Petitioners requested that the Department conduct the administrative review for Ta Chen, Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd. (Liang Feng), Tru–Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. (Tru–Flow), Censor International Corporation (Censor), and PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP). With regard to Ta Chen, we preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). On September 28, 2006, Tru–Flow, Liang Feng, Censor, and PFP certified that they had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). Based on Tru–Flow’s, Liang Feng’s, Censor’s, and PFP’s certified statements and on information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicating that these companies had no shipments to the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR, we hereby give notice that we intend to rescind the review regarding these four companies. For a full discussion of the intent to rescind with respect to Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, Censor and PFP, see the ‘‘Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part’’ section of this notice. If these preliminary results of review of Ta Chen’s sales are adopted in the final results, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference between the constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 1) a statement of the jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:57 Jun 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 issues, 2) a brief summary of the argument, and 3) a table of authorities. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–7924 or (202) 482– 3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Period of Review The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. Background On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from Taiwan. See Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings from Taiwan, 58 FR 33250 (June 16, 1993). On June 2, 2006, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request administrative review for the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 32032 (June 2, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), on June 22, 2006, petitioners requested an antidumping duty administrative review for Ta Chen, Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, Censor International, and PFP (collectively, respondents), and on June 29, 2006, Ta Chen requested an administrative review. On July 27, 2006, and August 30, 2006, the Department published notices initiating this administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation In Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006), and Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). On August 4, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Ta Chen, and on August 31, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, Censor International, and PFP. On September 11, 2006, Ta Chen submitted its response to section A of the Department’s questionnaire. In addition, on September 28, 2006, the Department received statements from four of the respondents, Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Censor, and PFP, certifying that they had neither sales nor exports of subject pipe fittings to the United States during the POR. On September 26, 2006, Ta Chen submitted its responses to sections B, C, and D of the Department’s questionnaire. On September 27, 2006, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ta Chen’s section A response, primarily regarding alleged affiliation issues. On October 30, 2006, petitioners submitted comments on Ta Chen’s section B, C, and D responses. On December 11, 2006, as a supplement to its September 27, 2006 comments, petitioners submitted additional comments regarding the disclosure requirements of related parties under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). On December 20, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section D questionnaire to Ta Chen. On January 16, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental section A through C questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta Chen responded to the Department’s section D supplemental questionnaire on January 17, 2007. On February 15, 2007, Ta Chen responded to the Department’s supplemental section A through C questionnaire. On February 22, 2007, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results of this administrative review by 120 days, to not later than July 2, 2007. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 7953 (February 22, 2007). On March 15, 2007, the Department issued a second section A through C supplemental questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta Chen submitted its response to the Department’s section A through C second supplemental response, and response regarding petitioners’ comments on April 6, 2007. On April 16, 2007, the Department issued a third section A through C supplemental questionnaire response. Ta Chen submitted its response to the Department’s third section A through C supplemental questionnaire on April 25, 2007, which included a response to petitioner’s March 23, 2007, comments. On May 7, 2007, petitioners submitted comments on Ta Chen’s April 25, 2007, questionnaire response. On May 17, 2007, Ta Chen submitted a response on petitioners’ May 7, 2007, comments. On May 22, 2007, petitioners submitted comments to Ta Chen’s May 17, 2007 submission. On May 24, 2007, the Department issued a fourth section A through D supplemental questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta Chen submitted its E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 126 / Monday, July 2, 2007 / Notices response to the Department’s third section A through D supplemental questionnaire on June 14, 2007. On June 18, 2007, petitioners submitted a request to the Department that it take additional steps to confirm that there were no shipments or entries from Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, Censor, and PFP of pipe fittings to the United States. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Notice of Intent to Rescind Review in Part Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. See, e.g., Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 71 FR 27676–78 (May 12, 2006); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 26041 (May 3, 2006). On September 28, 2006, Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, PFP, and Censor each submitted letters on the record certifying that their firms had no sales, entries, or exports of pipe fittings to the United States during the POR. To confirm their statements, the Department conducted a CBP data inquiry and determined that there were no identifiable entries of pipe fittings during the POR manufactured or exported by Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, PFP or Censor. See Memo to the File, through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager from Judy Lao: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. No Shipments Inquiry dated June 13, 2007. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily intends to rescind this review as to Liang Feng, Tru–Flow, PFP and Censor. Scope of the Order The products covered by this review are certain stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt–weld pipe fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise is used where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing the piping system: (1) corrosion of the piping system will occur if material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high temperatures are VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:57 Jun 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; and (5) high pressures are contained within the system. Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, with the following five shapes the most basic: elbows, tees, reducers, stub ends, and caps. The edges of finished pipe fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings are excluded from the order. The pipe fittings subject to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the review is dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this order. Affiliation We note that in this proceeding there is an ongoing claim by the petitioners that Ta Chen and its U.S. subsidiary, Ta Chen International Corporation (TCI), have several related parties that were not disclosed in its financial statements, and therefore, Ta Chen’s and TCI’s financial statements (and thus its underlying accounting records) should not be relied upon for the purposes of this determination. For the preliminary results, we have determined that the evidence on the record does not warrant a finding that the Department should disregard Ta Chen’s or TCI’s financial statements. However, we intend to solicit additional information from Ta Chen regarding its current affiliation with certain entities alleged by petitioners for our final results. Product Comparisons For the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to pipe fittings sold in the United States, we considered all pipe fittings covered by the scope that were sold by Ta Chen in the home market during the POR to be ‘‘foreign like products,’’ in accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the physical characteristics reported by Ta Chen, as follows: specification, seam, grade, size and schedule. The record shows that Ta Chen both purchased from and entered into tolling arrangements with unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers of pipe fittings. We have preliminarily determined that Ta Chen is the sole PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 35971 exporter of the pipe fittings under review, because record evidence, such as purchase orders, does not indicate that these manufacturers had knowledge that the pipe fittings would be exported to the United States. Therefore, knowledge that the pipe fittings would also be sold to the United States cannot be imputed to those unaffiliated manufacturers. See 19 CFR 351.401(h). Section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines ‘‘foreign like product’’ to be ‘‘{t}he subject merchandise and other merchandise which is identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the same country by the same person as, that merchandise.’’ Thus, consistent with the Department’s past practice in reviews under this order, for products that Ta Chen has identified with certainty that it purchased from a particular unaffiliated producer and resold in the U.S. market, we have restricted the matching of products to products purchased by Ta Chen from the same unaffiliated producer and resold in the home market. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 71 FR 39663 (July 13, 2006), and Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39735 (July 11, 2005). Date of Sale The Department’s regulations state that it will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s or producer’s records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the Department can establish ‘‘a different date {that} better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale,’’ the Department may choose a different date. Id. In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be used as the date of sale in both the home market and the U.S. market. See Ta Chen’s Section A Resp., at 14–16 (Sept. 11, 2006). For home market (HM) sales, the Department examined whether the date Ta Chen issued its pro forma invoice or its actual invoice best reflects the date of sale and determined that actual invoice date should be the sale date, consistent with the practice in all the previous reviews of this proceeding. See Ta Chen’s Section B Resp., at 8 (September 26, 2006), Ta Chen’s Supplemental Section A through C Resp., at 16 (February 15, 2007), and Ta E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 35972 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 126 / Monday, July 2, 2007 / Notices Chen’s Supplemental Section A through C Resp., at 16–18 (April 6, 2007). For U.S. sales, Ta Chen only had constructed export price (CEP) sales, and we used the invoice date for sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of pipe fittings by Ta Chen to the United States were made at prices below NV, we compared CEP to NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted–average NV of the foreign like product. Constructed Export Price Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter ‘‘ Consistent with recent past reviews, pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated the price of Ta Chen’s sales based on CEP because the sale to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer was made by Ta Chen’s U.S. affiliate, TCI. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (June 25, 2007) (Analysis Memo). Ta Chen has two channels of distribution for U.S. sales: 1) Ta Chen ships the merchandise to TCI for inventory in warehouses and subsequent resale to unaffiliated buyers (stock sales), and 2) Ta Chen ships the merchandise directly to TCI’s U.S. customer (indent sales). The Department finds that both stock and indent sales qualify as CEP sales because the original sales contract is between TCI and the U.S. customer. In addition, TCI handles all communication with the U.S. customer, from customer order to receipt of payment, and incurs the risk of non–payment. In addition, TCI handles customer complaints concerning issues such as product quality, specifications, delivery, and product returns. TCI is also responsible for the ocean freight for all U.S. sales and all selling efforts to the U.S. customer. See Ta Chen’s Section A Resp., at A10- A13 (Sept. 11, 2006), and Ta Chen’s Section A–C Resp. at 1–4, and 13–16 (April 6, 2007). We calculated CEP based on ex– warehouse or delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:57 Jun 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 States and, where appropriate, we added billing adjustments and deducted discounts. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted direct and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs incurred by TCI for stock sales, related to commercial activity in the United States. We also made deductions for movement expenses, which include foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, containerization expense, Taiwan harbor construction tax, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs duties. Finally, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit. Normal Value 1. Home Market Viability To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Ta Chen’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Ta Chen’s aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. See Ta Chen’s Section A Resp., at 2 (Sept. 11, 2006). 2. Cost of Production Analysis Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) in the prior administrative review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its home market were made at prices below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt–Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 71 FR 39663, 39665–66 (July 13, 2006), and Certain Stainless Steel Butt– Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 71 FR 67098 (Nov. 20, 2006). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis of home market sales by Ta Chen. A. Calculation of COP In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weighted– average COP based on the sum of Ta PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Chen’s cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus indirect selling expenses and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by Ta Chen in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For these preliminary results, the Department did not make any adjustments to the COP calculation. See Memo to Neal M. Halper, through Michael P. Martin, from Trinette Boyd: Cost of Production and Constructed Value Programming Instructions for the Preliminary Determination – Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd., dated July 2, 2007. B. Test of Home Market Prices We compared the weighted–average COP to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and were not at prices that permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we compared the COP to home market prices on a product–specific basis. We deducted imputed credit expenses, indirect selling expenses and packing from home market prices, and, where appropriate, added interest revenue received for late payments by customers. C. Results of COP Test In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, when less than 20 percent of Ta Chen’s sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below–cost sales of that product because we determined that the below–cost sales were not made in substantial quantities, as defined by section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. When 20 percent or more of Ta Chen’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales have been made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we appropriately disregarded below–cost sales and used E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 126 / Monday, July 2, 2007 / Notices the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 3. Price–to-Price Comparisons As there were sales at prices above the COP for all product comparisons, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We deducted credit expenses and added interest revenue. In addition, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting–price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we examine different selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, where possible, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify an LOT adjustment, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). Ta Chen reported two channels of distribution in the home market: unaffiliated distributors and end–users. We examined the selling activities reported for each channel of distribution and organized the reported selling activities into the following four selling functions: sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services. We found that Ta Chen’s level of selling functions to its home market customers for each of the four selling functions did not vary significantly by channel of distribution. See Ta Chen’s Section A VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:57 Jun 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 Resp., at A10–14 (Sept. 11, 2006); see also Ta Chen’s Sections A–D Supp. Resp., at 9–14 (Feb. 15, 2007); Ta Chen’s Sections A–C Suppl. Resp., at 13–16. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that the selling functions for the reported channels of distribution constitute one LOT in the comparison market. For CEP sales, we examined the selling activities related to each of the selling functions between Ta Chen and its U.S. affiliate, TCI. Ta Chen reported that all of its sales to the United States are CEP sales made through TCI, i.e., through one channel of distribution, and claimed that there is only one LOT. We examined the four selling functions and found that Ta Chen’s selling functions for sales to TCI are performed regardless of whether shipments are going to TCI or directly to the unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we preliminary determine that Ta Chen’s U.S. sales constitute a single LOT. We then compared the selling functions Ta Chen provided in the home market LOT with the selling functions provided to the U.S. LOT. In the home market, Ta Chen provides significant selling functions related to the sales process and marketing support, warranty and technical service, inventory maintenance, and some technical services in the comparison market, which it does not for the U.S. LOT. On this basis, we determined that the HM LOT is not similar Ta Chen’s U.S. LOT. However, since we have preliminarily determined that there is only one LOT in the home market, we are unable to calculate a LOT adjustment. Because we have preliminarily determined that NV is established at a LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP transactions, and we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, for these preliminary results we have applied a CEP offset to the NV– CEP comparisons, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. Currency Conversion For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act. Preliminary Results of the Review As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted– average dumping margin for the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006, to be as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 % Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd 35973 Weighted– Average Margin 0.52% The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments are limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon completion of this review the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer–specific ad valorem rate for merchandise exported by Ta Chen which is subject to this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of final results of this review. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Ta Chen or by any of the companies for which we are rescinding this review and for which Ta Chen or each no–shipment E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 35974 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 126 / Monday, July 2, 2007 / Notices respondent did not know its merchandise would be exported by another company to the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all–others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Cash Deposit SUMMARY: Export Trading Company Affairs (‘‘ETCA’’), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (‘‘Certificate’’). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail at oetca@ita.doc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct. The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate listed in the final results of review; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less–than-fair– value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all others’’ rate of 51.01 percent, which is the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Interested Parties jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 25, 2007. Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–12750 Filed 6–29–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:57 Jun 29, 2007 Jkt 211001 International Trade Administration Export Trade Certificate of Review Notice of Application to Amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review Issued to Northwest Fruit Exporters. ACTION: Request for Public Comments Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a non-confidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7021–B H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, non-confidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as ‘‘Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 84–18A12.’’ A summary of the application for an amendment follows. Summary of the Application: Applicant: Northwest Fruit Exporters (‘‘NFE’’), 105 South 18th Street, Suite 227, Yakima, Washington 98901. Contact: James R. Archer, Manager to NFE, Telephone: (509) 576–8004. Application No.: 84–18A12. Date Deemed Submitted: June 19, 2007. The original NFE Certificate was issued on June 11, 1984 (49 FR 24581, June 14, 1984) and last amended on September 28, 2006 (71 FR 58785, October 5, 2006). Proposed Amendment: NFE seeks to amend its Certificate to: 1. Add each of the following companies as a new ‘‘Member’’ of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): K–K Packing & Storage, LLC, Zillah, Washington; Manzaneros Mexicanos De Washington, Yakima, Washington; and Valicoff Fruit Co., Inc., Wapato, Washington; 2. Delete the following companies as ‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate: Cascade Fresh Fruits, LLC, Manson, Washington; John’s Farm LLC, Brewster, Washington; Lloyd Garretson Co., Yakima, Washington; Obert Cold Storage, Inc., Zillah, Washington; PAC Marketing International, LLC, Yakima, Washington; Rowe Farms, Inc., Naches, Washington; and Voelker Fruit and Cold Storage, Yakima, Washington; and 3. Change the listing of the following ‘‘Member’’: Sage Processing LLC, Wapato and Zillah, Washington to the new listing Pacific Coast Cherry Packers, LLC, Yakima, Washington. Dated: June 26, 2007. Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Export Trading Company Affairs. [FR Doc. E7–12756 Filed 6–29–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary of Defense Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 126 (Monday, July 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35970-35974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12750]



[[Page 35970]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-816]


Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe 
Co., Ltd. (Ta Chen) and from Flowline Division of Markovitz 
Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline Division), Gerlin, Inc., Shaw Alloy Piping 
Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc., (collectively, 
petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) from Taiwan. 
Petitioners requested that the Department conduct the administrative 
review for Ta Chen, Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., Ltd. (Liang 
Feng), Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. (Tru-Flow), Censor International 
Corporation (Censor), and PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd. (PFP).
    With regard to Ta Chen, we preliminarily determine that sales have 
been made below normal value (NV). On September 28, 2006, Tru-Flow, 
Liang Feng, Censor, and PFP certified that they had no sales or 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
of review (POR). Based on Tru-Flow's, Liang Feng's, Censor's, and PFP's 
certified statements and on information from U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) indicating that these companies had no shipments to 
the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR, we hereby 
give notice that we intend to rescind the review regarding these four 
companies. For a full discussion of the intent to rescind with respect 
to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor and PFP, see the ``Notice of Intent to 
Rescind in Part'' section of this notice.
    If these preliminary results of review of Ta Chen's sales are 
adopted in the final results, we will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on appropriate entries based on the difference 
between the constructed export price (CEP) and the NV. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties 
who submit comments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the 
argument: 1) a statement of the issues, 2) a brief summary of the 
argument, and 3) a table of authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Lao or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
7924 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Review

    The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 2005, through May 
31, 2006.

Background

    On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from Taiwan. See Amended 
Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings from Taiwan, 58 FR 33250 (June 16, 
1993). On June 2, 2006, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request administrative review for the period June 1, 
2005, through May 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 32032 (June 2, 2006).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), on June 22, 2006, 
petitioners requested an antidumping duty administrative review for Ta 
Chen, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor International, and PFP 
(collectively, respondents), and on June 29, 2006, Ta Chen requested an 
administrative review. On July 27, 2006, and August 30, 2006, the 
Department published notices initiating this administrative review. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Request for Revocation In Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 
2006), and Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573 
(August 30, 2006).
    On August 4, 2006, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Ta Chen, and on August 31, 2006, the Department issued 
its antidumping duty questionnaire to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor 
International, and PFP. On September 11, 2006, Ta Chen submitted its 
response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. In addition, 
on September 28, 2006, the Department received statements from four of 
the respondents, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP, certifying that 
they had neither sales nor exports of subject pipe fittings to the 
United States during the POR. On September 26, 2006, Ta Chen submitted 
its responses to sections B, C, and D of the Department's 
questionnaire.
    On September 27, 2006, petitioners submitted comments regarding Ta 
Chen's section A response, primarily regarding alleged affiliation 
issues. On October 30, 2006, petitioners submitted comments on Ta 
Chen's section B, C, and D responses. On December 11, 2006, as a 
supplement to its September 27, 2006 comments, petitioners submitted 
additional comments regarding the disclosure requirements of related 
parties under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). On 
December 20, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section D 
questionnaire to Ta Chen. On January 16, 2007, the Department issued a 
supplemental section A through C questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta Chen 
responded to the Department's section D supplemental questionnaire on 
January 17, 2007. On February 15, 2007, Ta Chen responded to the 
Department's supplemental section A through C questionnaire.
    On February 22, 2007, the Department extended the time limit for 
the preliminary results of this administrative review by 120 days, to 
not later than July 2, 2007. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings from Taiwan: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 7953 (February 
22, 2007). On March 15, 2007, the Department issued a second section A 
through C supplemental questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta Chen submitted its 
response to the Department's section A through C second supplemental 
response, and response regarding petitioners' comments on April 6, 
2007.
    On April 16, 2007, the Department issued a third section A through 
C supplemental questionnaire response. Ta Chen submitted its response 
to the Department's third section A through C supplemental 
questionnaire on April 25, 2007, which included a response to 
petitioner's March 23, 2007, comments. On May 7, 2007, petitioners 
submitted comments on Ta Chen's April 25, 2007, questionnaire response. 
On May 17, 2007, Ta Chen submitted a response on petitioners' May 7, 
2007, comments. On May 22, 2007, petitioners submitted comments to Ta 
Chen's May 17, 2007 submission. On May 24, 2007, the Department issued 
a fourth section A through D supplemental questionnaire to Ta Chen. Ta 
Chen submitted its

[[Page 35971]]

response to the Department's third section A through D supplemental 
questionnaire on June 14, 2007. On June 18, 2007, petitioners submitted 
a request to the Department that it take additional steps to confirm 
that there were no shipments or entries from Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, 
Censor, and PFP of pipe fittings to the United States.

Notice of Intent to Rescind Review in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular 
exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that there were no 
entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. 
See, e.g., Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission, 71 FR 27676-78 (May 12, 2006); Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Japan: Final Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 26041 (May 3, 2006).
    On September 28, 2006, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP, and Censor each 
submitted letters on the record certifying that their firms had no 
sales, entries, or exports of pipe fittings to the United States during 
the POR. To confirm their statements, the Department conducted a CBP 
data inquiry and determined that there were no identifiable entries of 
pipe fittings during the POR manufactured or exported by Liang Feng, 
Tru-Flow, PFP or Censor. See Memo to the File, through Angelica 
Mendoza, Program Manager from Judy Lao: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., 
Ltd. No Shipments Inquiry dated June 13, 2007. Therefore, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily intends to 
rescind this review as to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP and Censor.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this review are certain stainless steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 
inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings are used to connect pipe sections in piping systems where 
conditions require welded connections. The subject merchandise is used 
where one or more of the following conditions is a factor in designing 
the piping system: (1) corrosion of the piping system will occur if 
material other than stainless steel is used; (2) contamination of the 
material in the system by the system itself must be prevented; (3) high 
temperatures are present; (4) extreme low temperatures are present; and 
(5) high pressures are contained within the system.
    Pipe fittings come in a variety of shapes, with the following five 
shapes the most basic: elbows, tees, reducers, stub ends, and caps. The 
edges of finished pipe fittings are beveled. Threaded, grooved, and 
bolted fittings are excluded from the order. The pipe fittings subject 
to the order are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.00 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
    Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the review is 
dispositive. Pipe fittings manufactured to American Society of Testing 
and Materials specification A774 are included in the scope of this 
order.

Affiliation

    We note that in this proceeding there is an ongoing claim by the 
petitioners that Ta Chen and its U.S. subsidiary, Ta Chen International 
Corporation (TCI), have several related parties that were not disclosed 
in its financial statements, and therefore, Ta Chen's and TCI's 
financial statements (and thus its underlying accounting records) 
should not be relied upon for the purposes of this determination. For 
the preliminary results, we have determined that the evidence on the 
record does not warrant a finding that the Department should disregard 
Ta Chen's or TCI's financial statements. However, we intend to solicit 
additional information from Ta Chen regarding its current affiliation 
with certain entities alleged by petitioners for our final results.

Product Comparisons

    For the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
pipe fittings sold in the United States, we considered all pipe 
fittings covered by the scope that were sold by Ta Chen in the home 
market during the POR to be ``foreign like products,'' in accordance 
with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 
Where there were no contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in 
the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the 
next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the physical 
characteristics reported by Ta Chen, as follows: specification, seam, 
grade, size and schedule.
    The record shows that Ta Chen both purchased from and entered into 
tolling arrangements with unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers of pipe 
fittings. We have preliminarily determined that Ta Chen is the sole 
exporter of the pipe fittings under review, because record evidence, 
such as purchase orders, does not indicate that these manufacturers had 
knowledge that the pipe fittings would be exported to the United 
States. Therefore, knowledge that the pipe fittings would also be sold 
to the United States cannot be imputed to those unaffiliated 
manufacturers. See 19 CFR 351.401(h).
    Section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines ``foreign like product'' to 
be ``{t{time} he subject merchandise and other merchandise which is 
identical in physical characteristics with, and was produced in the 
same country by the same person as, that merchandise.'' Thus, 
consistent with the Department's past practice in reviews under this 
order, for products that Ta Chen has identified with certainty that it 
purchased from a particular unaffiliated producer and resold in the 
U.S. market, we have restricted the matching of products to products 
purchased by Ta Chen from the same unaffiliated producer and resold in 
the home market. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 71 FR 
39663 (July 13, 2006), and Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 
Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 
39735 (July 11, 2005).

Date of Sale

    The Department's regulations state that it will normally use the 
date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records 
kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. See 19 
CFR 351.401(i). If the Department can establish ``a different date 
{that{time}  better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale,'' the Department may choose a 
different date. Id.
    In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be 
used as the date of sale in both the home market and the U.S. market. 
See Ta Chen's Section A Resp., at 14-16 (Sept. 11, 2006). For home 
market (HM) sales, the Department examined whether the date Ta Chen 
issued its pro forma invoice or its actual invoice best reflects the 
date of sale and determined that actual invoice date should be the sale 
date, consistent with the practice in all the previous reviews of this 
proceeding. See Ta Chen's Section B Resp., at 8 (September 26, 2006), 
Ta Chen's Supplemental Section A through C Resp., at 16 (February 15, 
2007), and Ta

[[Page 35972]]

Chen's Supplemental Section A through C Resp., at 16-18 (April 6, 
2007). For U.S. sales, Ta Chen only had constructed export price (CEP) 
sales, and we used the invoice date for sales to the first unaffiliated 
U.S. customer.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of pipe fittings by Ta Chen to the 
United States were made at prices below NV, we compared CEP to NV, as 
described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared 
the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-
average NV of the foreign like product.

Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as ``the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 
States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of 
the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter `` Consistent with recent past reviews, pursuant 
to section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated the price of Ta Chen's 
sales based on CEP because the sale to the first unaffiliated U.S. 
customer was made by Ta Chen's U.S. affiliate, TCI. See Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of 
Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Ta Chen 
Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (June 25, 2007) (Analysis Memo). Ta Chen has 
two channels of distribution for U.S. sales: 1) Ta Chen ships the 
merchandise to TCI for inventory in warehouses and subsequent resale to 
unaffiliated buyers (stock sales), and 2) Ta Chen ships the merchandise 
directly to TCI's U.S. customer (indent sales). The Department finds 
that both stock and indent sales qualify as CEP sales because the 
original sales contract is between TCI and the U.S. customer. In 
addition, TCI handles all communication with the U.S. customer, from 
customer order to receipt of payment, and incurs the risk of non-
payment. In addition, TCI handles customer complaints concerning issues 
such as product quality, specifications, delivery, and product returns. 
TCI is also responsible for the ocean freight for all U.S. sales and 
all selling efforts to the U.S. customer. See Ta Chen's Section A 
Resp., at A10- A13 (Sept. 11, 2006), and Ta Chen's Section A-C Resp. at 
1-4, and 13-16 (April 6, 2007).
    We calculated CEP based on ex-warehouse or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States and, where appropriate, we 
added billing adjustments and deducted discounts. In accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted direct and 
indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs incurred 
by TCI for stock sales, related to commercial activity in the United 
States. We also made deductions for movement expenses, which include 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, 
containerization expense, Taiwan harbor construction tax, marine 
insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. 
customs duties. Finally, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP profit.

Normal Value

1. Home Market Viability

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
Ta Chen's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to 
the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Ta Chen's aggregate volume of 
home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five 
percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject 
merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. See Ta 
Chen's Section A Resp., at 2 (Sept. 11, 2006).

2. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) in 
the prior administrative review, we have reasonable grounds to believe 
or suspect that sales by Ta Chen in its home market were made at prices 
below the COP, pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act. See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From 
Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 71 FR 39663, 39665-66 (July 
13, 2006), and Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From 
Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 71 FR 
67098 (Nov. 20, 2006).
    Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a 
COP analysis of home market sales by Ta Chen.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus indirect selling 
expenses and packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by Ta 
Chen in its original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For 
these preliminary results, the Department did not make any adjustments 
to the COP calculation. See Memo to Neal M. Halper, through Michael P. 
Martin, from Trinette Boyd: Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Programming Instructions for the Preliminary Determination - Ta Chen 
Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd., dated July 2, 2007.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP to home market sales of the 
foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in 
order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below 
the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made within 
an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and were not at 
prices that permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 
773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Where appropriate, we compared the COP to home 
market prices on a product-specific basis. We deducted imputed credit 
expenses, indirect selling expenses and packing from home market 
prices, and, where appropriate, added interest revenue received for 
late payments by customers.
C. Results of COP Test
    In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, when less than 20 
percent of Ta Chen's sales of a given product were at prices less than 
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
substantial quantities, as defined by section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. 
When 20 percent or more of Ta Chen's sales of a given product during 
the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales 
have been made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period 
of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and 773(b)(2)(C) of 
the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average costs, we also 
determined that such sales were not made at prices that would permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this 
administrative review, we appropriately disregarded below-cost sales 
and used

[[Page 35973]]

the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

3. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    As there were sales at prices above the COP for all product 
comparisons, we based NV on prices to home market customers. We 
deducted credit expenses and added interest revenue. In addition, we 
made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we also 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market 
at the same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP, it 
is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer. 
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP sales, we 
examine different selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison 
market sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price 
comparability as manifested in a pattern of consistent price 
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison 
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, where possible, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales for which we are unable to quantify an LOT adjustment, if 
the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and 
there is no basis for determining whether the difference in levels 
between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision).
    Ta Chen reported two channels of distribution in the home market: 
unaffiliated distributors and end-users. We examined the selling 
activities reported for each channel of distribution and organized the 
reported selling activities into the following four selling functions: 
sales process and marketing support, freight and delivery, inventory 
maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services. We 
found that Ta Chen's level of selling functions to its home market 
customers for each of the four selling functions did not vary 
significantly by channel of distribution. See Ta Chen's Section A 
Resp., at A10-14 (Sept. 11, 2006); see also Ta Chen's Sections A-D 
Supp. Resp., at 9-14 (Feb. 15, 2007); Ta Chen's Sections A-C Suppl. 
Resp., at 13-16. Therefore, we preliminarily conclude that the selling 
functions for the reported channels of distribution constitute one LOT 
in the comparison market.
    For CEP sales, we examined the selling activities related to each 
of the selling functions between Ta Chen and its U.S. affiliate, TCI. 
Ta Chen reported that all of its sales to the United States are CEP 
sales made through TCI, i.e., through one channel of distribution, and 
claimed that there is only one LOT. We examined the four selling 
functions and found that Ta Chen's selling functions for sales to TCI 
are performed regardless of whether shipments are going to TCI or 
directly to the unaffiliated customer. Therefore, we preliminary 
determine that Ta Chen's U.S. sales constitute a single LOT.
    We then compared the selling functions Ta Chen provided in the home 
market LOT with the selling functions provided to the U.S. LOT. In the 
home market, Ta Chen provides significant selling functions related to 
the sales process and marketing support, warranty and technical 
service, inventory maintenance, and some technical services in the 
comparison market, which it does not for the U.S. LOT. On this basis, 
we determined that the HM LOT is not similar Ta Chen's U.S. LOT. 
However, since we have preliminarily determined that there is only one 
LOT in the home market, we are unable to calculate a LOT adjustment. 
Because we have preliminarily determined that NV is established at a 
LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of 
the CEP transactions, and we are unable to quantify a LOT adjustment 
pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, for these preliminary 
results we have applied a CEP offset to the NV-CEP comparisons, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 
2006, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                                                          Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd........................   0.52[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results of review within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 
rebuttals to written comments are limited to issues raised in such 
briefs or comments and may be filed no later than five days after the 
time limit for filing the case briefs or comments. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are 
requested to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, 
(2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). An interested party may request a hearing within 
30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the 
scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.310(d). The Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 
days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this review the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-
specific ad valorem rate for merchandise exported by Ta Chen which is 
subject to this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of final results of 
this review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise 
during the period of review produced by Ta Chen or by any of the 
companies for which we are rescinding this review and for which Ta Chen 
or each no-shipment

[[Page 35974]]

respondent did not know its merchandise would be exported by another 
company to the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
company will be the rate listed in the final results of review; (2) for 
previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate 
of 51.01 percent, which is the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 25, 2007.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-12750 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.