Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No Shipment Determination, 79651-79655 [2011-32839]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices intervals making the SIPP a longitudinal survey. Sample people (all household members present at the time of the first interview) who move within the country and reasonably close to a SIPP primary sampling unit will be followed and interviewed at their new address. Individuals 15 years old or over who enter the household after Wave 1 will be interviewed; however, if these individuals move, they are not followed unless they happen to move along with a Wave 1 sample individual. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0607–0944. Form Number: SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument. Type of Review: Regular submission. Affected Public: Individuals or Households. Estimated Number of Respondents: 94,500 people per wave. Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes per person on average. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 143,303.1 Estimated Total Annual Cost: The only cost to respondents is their time. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Section 182. IV. Request for Comments jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) methods to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: December 19, 2011. Lenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2011–32796 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 1 (94,500 × .5 hr × 3 waves + (3,100 × .167 hr × 3 waves)) VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–475–828] Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No Shipment Determination Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests for an administrative review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (SSBW pipe fittings) from Italy. The review involves the imports of subject merchandise of two respondent companies and covers the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011. For these preliminary results, we found that one respondent made sales of subject merchandise at or above normal value while the other respondent had no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review. DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman 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) 482–3931 or (202) 482– 3019, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Period of Review The period of review is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011. Background On February 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the order on SSBW pipe fittings from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 5559 (February 1, 2011). In response, the Department received requests from two companies—Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A. (Tectubi) and Filmag Italia SRL (Filmag)—on February 28, 2011. In each request, the companies requested a review of their own sales. We initiated the review of both companies on March 31, 2011. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 79651 Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011). On October 31, 2011, we extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of the review to no later than December 15, 2011. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 67146 (October 31, 2011). Both Tectubi and Filmag submitted responses to the Department’s antidumping questionnaire and responses to subsequent requests for clarifications or additional information. The petitioner did not file any comments on these submissions. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments In its response to the Department’s antidumping questionnaire, Filmag stated that it had no sales of subject merchandise during the period of review. We later confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that this company had no entries of SSBW pipe fittings from Italy during the period of review. See ‘‘Memorandum to the File’’ regarding No Shipments Inquiries for Filmag Italia SRL, dated November 28, 2011. Because the evidence on the record indicates that Filmag did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review, we preliminarily determine that it had no reviewable transactions during this period. Our past practice concerning noshipment respondents was to rescind the administrative review if the respondent certified that it had no shipments and we confirmed the certified statement through an examination of CBP data. We would then instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of merchandise produced by the respondent at the deposit rate in effect on the date of entry. However, in our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic assessment’’ clarification, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative review demonstrated that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the allothers rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). Thus, our practice of rescinding noshipment reviews did not comport with the clarification, since it was our intent to no longer liquidate the entries of resellers, of which a respondent company had no knowledge, at an ‘‘as entered’’ rate. E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1 79652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Therefore, instead of rescinding the review with respect to Filmag, we find it appropriate to complete the review and issue liquidation instructions to CBP concerning entries for this company following the final results of the review. If we continue to find that Filmag had no reviewable transactions of subject merchandise in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Filmag but exported by other parties at the all-others rate. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010). Collapsing of Affiliated Companies In its original and supplemental questionnaire responses, Tectubi reported all home-market and U.S. sales of SSBW pipe fittings from Italy that involved itself and two affiliates, Raccordi Forgiati S.r.l. (Raccordi) and Allied International S.r.l. (Allied). Tectubi explained that, although it had made the only sales of subject merchandise during the period of review, it concluded that the questionnaire instructions required a response on behalf of all three companies based on their close affiliation with one another and Raccordi and Allied’s involvement in the production and sale of SSBW pipe fittings. When considering whether to collapse affiliates and treat them as a single entity for purposes of an administrative review, we first consider their affiliation to one another. Because Tectubi and Raccordi are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Allied, we found that the three companies were affiliated under section 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). We next found that, as both Tectubi and Raccordi produced the merchandise under review during the period of review, they had production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure their manufacturing priorities, as required under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). We also found that there was a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production between the two companies, based on their common ownership, their shared president and chief executive officer (CEO), and their intertwined production operations. We found that, in the case of Tectubi’s sales VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 of Raccordi’s product, they also shared sales information. Accordingly, because both collapsing criteria were met under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we concluded that Tectubi and Raccordi should be treated as a single entity for purposes of this review. In keeping with the Department’s practice to consider the collapsing of affiliated processors and exporters, our consideration of collapsing extended to Allied as well. See Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004) (Shrimp from Brazil), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. As in Shrimp from Brazil, we found in the current review that the ownership, management and operations of a producer and an affiliated exporter were so intertwined that management could switch the role of producer and seller between the two companies without substantial retooling of either company. Specifically, we found that Raccordi and Allied shared the same president and CEO, as well as two managers and the staff of two company units, including that of the commercial unit. In terms of operations, we found that Allied acted as the primary sales arm for Raccordi for sales made to affiliated and unaffiliated parties in Italy and all export markets. As for the second criteria of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we found a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production between Allied and the two producing companies. Apart from sharing ownership and management, the three companies: (1) Shared sales information, as Raccordi was dependent on the other two companies for sales promotion and processing; (2) coordinated their production and pricing decisions; (3) shared employees in the case of Raccordi and Allied; and (4) had significant transactions between them, due to Raccordi’s reliance on Tectubi and Allied to market its products. Therefore, we concluded that Tectubi, Raccordi and Allied should be treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating a dumping margin pursuant to the provisions of 19 CFR 351.401(f). Consequently, we calculated a dumping margin based on the sales information reported by Tectubi for all three companies for these preliminary results. For a more detailed discussion of our collapsing decision, see the ‘‘Memorandum to the File’’ regarding Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A.—Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2010/2011 Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Pipe Fittings from Italy, dated December 15, 2011 (Tectubi Analysis Memorandum), at 2–5. Scope of the Order For purposes of the order, the product covered is certain stainless steel buttweld pipe fittings. SSBW pipe fittings are under 14 inches in outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size), whether finished or unfinished. The product encompasses all grades of stainless steel and ‘‘commodity’’ and ‘‘specialty’’ fittings. Specifically excluded from the definition are threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings made from any material other than stainless steel. The butt-weld fittings subject to the order are generally designated under specification ASTM A403/A403M, the standard specification for Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings, or its foreign equivalents (e.g., DIN or JIS specifications). This specification covers two general classes of fittings, WP and CR, of wrought austenitic stainless steel fittings of seamless and welded construction covered by the latest revision of ANSI B16.9, ANSI B16.11, and ANSI B16.28. Butt-weld fittings manufactured to specification ASTM A774, or its foreign equivalents, are also covered by the order. The order does not apply to cast fittings. Cast austenitic stainless steel pipe fittings are covered by specifications A351/A351M, A743/ 743M, and A744/A744M. The butt-weld fittings subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Fair Value Comparisons To determine if sales of subject merchandise were made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price of U.S. sales to normal value, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export price of U.S. sales within the period of review to the monthly, weighted-average normal value of foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Price-to-Price Comparisons’’ section below. E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all SSBW pipe fittings produced by the collapsed entity (hereinafter referred to as Tectubi), covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section above, and sold in the home market during the period of review, to be foreign like product for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to subject merchandise sold in the United States. We relied on the following product characteristics to identify identical or similar subject merchandise and foreign like product: (1) The type of fitting; (2) the grade of steel; (3) the type of feedstock used in the production of the fitting; (4) the nominal pipe sizes of the larger and, if applicable, smaller openings; and, (5) the wall thickness of the pipe. We found that Tectubi had reported a contemporaneous sale of identical foreign like product for each sale of subject merchandise it made to the United States during the period of review. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and to the extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales made in the home market at the same level of trade as export price or the constructed export price. The normal-value level of trade is based on the starting prices of sales in the home market or, when normal value is based on constructed value, those of the sales from which we derived selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(iii). For export price, the level of trade is based on the starting price, which is usually the price from the exporter to the importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, Tectubi reported only export-price sales to the United States. To determine if the home-market sales are made at a different level of trade than export sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and the selling functions performed along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). If home-market sales are at a different level of trade, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and homemarket sales made at the level of trade of the export transaction, and the difference affects price comparability, then we make a level-of-trade adjustment to normal value under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997). In the home market, Tectubi identified the following two channels of distribution through which it had made sales during the period of review: (1) Direct sales made by Tectubi and, (2) indirect sales made through Allied to the first unaffiliated customer. Tectubi reported that all of the sales had been made at a single level of trade. Based on our analysis of Tectubi’s selling functions, we found that the sales made in both channels of distribution were made at one level of trade. With respect to the U.S. market, Tectubi reported that its export-price sales were made through one channel of distribution—direct sales made by Tectubi to the U.S. unaffiliated customer—and that they had been made at one level of trade. Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed by Tectubi on these sales, we found them to be made at one exportprice level of trade. We then compared the selling functions performed for the sales at the normal-value level of trade to those performed for the export-price level of trade and found that Tectubi performed a greater range of selling functions for the home-market sales than for the U.S. sales. But, because there was only one level of trade in the home market and no data were available to determine the existence of a pattern of price differences within that market and because we do not have any other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-of-trade adjustment, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we matched the export-price sales to home-market sales without making a level-of-trade adjustment to normal value. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For a more detailed discussion of our analysis, see the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section in the Tectubi Analysis Memorandum at 5 and 6. Date of Sale The regulation at 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the Department normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer’s or exporter’s records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date of sale. The regulation provides further that the Department may use a date other than the date of the invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. The Department has a longstanding practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes invoice date, PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 79653 shipment date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Tectubi reported that, in the home market, it generally ships the merchandise to the customer and issues the invoice near the end of the month of shipment. For this reason, it reported the date of shipment as the date of sale for all home-market sales. It reported invoice date as the date of sale for its U.S. sales, since Tectubi issues the invoice when the merchandise leaves the factory for all export sales. Based on this information and our practice, we found that date of shipment best reflected the date on which material terms of sales were established in the home market. We found that the invoice date best reflected this date in the U.S. market. Accordingly, we found these dates—the shipment date in the home market and the invoice date in the U.S. market—to be the most appropriate dates of sale for these preliminary results. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see the ‘‘Date of Sale’’ section of the Tectubi Analysis Memorandum at 6 and 7. Export Price Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price as ‘‘the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).’’ For purposes of these preliminary results, we calculated export price for sales by Tectubi in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation by the producer, outside of the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We calculated export price based on the packed price that was charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We made deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, in E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1 79654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including deductions for foreign inland freight (plant/warehouse to the port of exit), international freight, U.S. inland freight (port of entry to the unaffiliated customer), marine insurance, brokerage and handling and U.S. customs duties. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for imputed credit and certain direct selling expenses, such as U.S. sales commissions and bank charges. Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A./ Raccordi Forgiati S.r.l./Allied International S.r.l. ....... 0.00 Disclosure and Public Comments The Department will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Normal Value An interested party may request a A. Selection of Home Market hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR To determine if there was a sufficient 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, volume of sales of SSBW pipe fittings in will be held 37 days after the date of the home market during the period of publication, or the first business day review to serve as a viable basis for thereafter, unless the Department alters calculating normal value, we compared the date pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Tectubi’s volume of home-market sales Interested parties may submit case briefs of the foreign like product to the volume no later than 30 days after the date of of its U.S. sales of the subject publication of these preliminary results merchandise, in accordance with of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). section 773(a) of the Act. Because the Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised aggregate volume of the home-market in the case briefs, may be filed no later sales of the foreign like product was than five days after the time limit for greater than five percent of the aggregate submitting the case briefs. See 19 CFR volume of U.S. sales for subject 351.309(d). Parties who submit merchandise, we determined that the argument in these proceedings are home market was viable for comparison requested to submit with the argument: purposes, pursuant to section (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. B. Price-to-Price Comparisons Parties are reminded that any case or rebuttal briefs must be filed We calculated normal value based on electronically using Import prices to the first, unaffiliated Administration’s Antidumping and customers. In our calculation of normal Countervailing Duty Centralized value, we accounted for certain sales discounts. We did not make deductions Electronic Service System, in for movement or warehousing expenses, compliance with the procedures set forth in Antidumping and pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, as all sales were ex works. We made Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; adjustments for differences in Administrative Protective Order circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). The Department intends to issue the of the Act. Specifically, we made a COS adjustment for imputed credit expenses. final results of this administrative review, including the results of our Although there were commissions analysis of the issues in any such incurred on the U.S. sales but not on argument or at a hearing, within 120 home-market sales, we made no days of the date of publication of this commission offset to normal value as notice. Tectubi opted not to report its homemarket indirect selling expenses. Duty Assessment Finally, we deducted home-market Upon completion of this packing costs to normal value and administrative review, the Department added U.S. packing costs in accordance shall determine, and CBP shall assess, with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the antidumping duties on all appropriate Act. entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate Preliminary Results of Review importer- or customer-specific ad As a result of our review, we valorem assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the preliminarily determine that the total amount of antidumping duties following weighted-average dumping calculated for the examined sales made margin exists for the period February 1, during the period of review to the total 2010, through January 31, 2011: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 customs value of the sales used to calculate those duties. Where the duty assessment rates are above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer in accordance with the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). As noted above, the Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review that were produced by Tectubi and for which it did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. Likewise, if we make a final determination of no shipments for Filmag, which certified that it made no review-period shipments of subject merchandise for which it had knowledge of U.S. destination, the clarification will apply to any entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by that company. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the allothers rate of 26.59 percent, established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of the order, if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, 66 FR 11257, 11258 (Feb., 23, 2001). For a full discussion of this matter, see Assessment Policy Notice. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective, upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, for all shipments of SSBW pipe fittings from Italy entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for Tectubi will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in which case the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 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, the prior review, or the LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2011 / Notices recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cashdeposit rate will be the all-others rate of 26.59 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 15, 2011. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–32839 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–357–812] Honey From Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the preliminary results of this administrative review to no later than January 3, 2012. SUMMARY: DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 2011. John Drury or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Room 7850, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0195 or (202) 482–3019, respectively. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:17 Dec 21, 2011 Jkt 226001 Background On January 28, 2011, the Department initiated a review of the 21 1 companies for which an administrative review was requested. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 5137 (January 28, 2011) (Initiation Notice).2 On September 7, 2011, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results until December 1, 2011, and rescinded the administrative review with respect to ten companies: (1) Alimentos NaturalesNatural Foods Lavalle, (2) Alma Pura, (3) Apidouro Comercial Exportadora E Importadora Ltda., (4) Bomare S.A., (5) HoneyMax, (6) Interrupcion S.A., (7) Miel Ceta SRL, (8) Nexco, (9) Productos Afer S.A., and (10) Seabird Argentina S.A. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55349 (September 7, 2011). On December 7, 2011, the Department extended the time limit for the preliminary results until December 15, 2011. See Honey From Argentina: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results, 76 FR 76374 (December 7, 2011). This review covers the following companies: TransHoney S.A. (TransHoney), ˜´ Companıa Inversora Platense S.A. (CIPSA), AGLH S.A., Algodonera Avellaneda S.A., Compania Apicola Argentina S.A., El Mana S.A., Industrial Haedo S.A., Mielar S.A., Patagonik S.A., and Villamora S.A. We selected TransHoney and CIPSA for individual examination. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, ‘‘Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from Argentina: Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’ dated May 9, 2011. 1 On January 13, 2011, petitioners withdrew their request for an antidumping duty administrative review of honey from Argentina for the period of review with respect to Asociacion de Cooperativas Argentinas (ACA). Petitioners noted that ACA is no longer subject to the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina. 2 On February 24, 2011, the Department published a subsequent initiation notice which included corrections to the Initiation Notice with respect to honey from Argentina. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 10329 (February 24, 2011) (Second Initiation Notice). In the review request for Nexco S.A. (Nexco), it also requested revocation from the antidumping duty order on honey from Argentina (in part). However, Nexco’s request for revocation in part from the order was inadvertently omitted from the Initiation Notice. Furthermore, certain company names were misspelled in the same Initiation Notice. All errors were corrected in the Second Initiation Notice. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 79655 Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to complete the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. The Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit due to the selection of two new mandatory respondents for this review after the requests for review for the original respondents were withdrawn. The Department requires additional time to analyze sufficiently information submitted by the current respondents in this administrative review. Accordingly, the Department is further extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of this administrative review by 16 days (i.e., to December 31, 2011).3 This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 351.213(d)(4) of the Department’s regulations and sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 15, 2011. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2011–32836 Filed 12–21–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Manufacturing Council Meeting International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. AGENCY: The Manufacturing Council will hold a meeting to hear updates from the Department of Commerce in SUMMARY: 3 Because December 31, 2011, falls on a Saturday, the Department will toll the date of the preliminary results to the first business day after December 31, 2011. Therefore, the deadline for the preliminary results will be the following business day, Tuesday, January 3, 2012. See Notice of Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005). E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM 22DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79651-79655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32839]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-828]


Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No 
Shipment Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to requests for an administrative review, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings (SSBW pipe fittings) from Italy. The review involves the 
imports of subject merchandise of two respondent companies and covers 
the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011. For these 
preliminary results, we found that one respondent made sales of subject 
merchandise at or above normal value while the other respondent had no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review.

DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edythe Artman 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-
3931 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Review

    The period of review is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.

Background

    On February 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the order on SSBW 
pipe fittings from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 5559 (February 1, 2011). In response, the 
Department received requests from two companies--Tectubi Raccordi 
S.p.A. (Tectubi) and Filmag Italia SRL (Filmag)--on February 28, 2011. 
In each request, the companies requested a review of their own sales. 
We initiated the review of both companies on March 31, 2011. See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for 
Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review, 76 FR 17825 
(March 31, 2011).
    On October 31, 2011, we extended the time limit for completion of 
the preliminary results of the review to no later than December 15, 
2011. See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy; Extension 
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 67146 (October 31, 2011).
    Both Tectubi and Filmag submitted responses to the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire and responses to subsequent requests for 
clarifications or additional information. The petitioner did not file 
any comments on these submissions.

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    In its response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, 
Filmag stated that it had no sales of subject merchandise during the 
period of review. We later confirmed with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) that this company had no entries of SSBW pipe fittings 
from Italy during the period of review. See ``Memorandum to the File'' 
regarding No Shipments Inquiries for Filmag Italia SRL, dated November 
28, 2011. Because the evidence on the record indicates that Filmag did 
not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
of review, we preliminarily determine that it had no reviewable 
transactions during this period.
    Our past practice concerning no-shipment respondents was to rescind 
the administrative review if the respondent certified that it had no 
shipments and we confirmed the certified statement through an 
examination of CBP data. We would then instruct CBP to liquidate any 
entries of merchandise produced by the respondent at the deposit rate 
in effect on the date of entry. However, in our May 6, 2003, 
``automatic assessment'' clarification, we explained that, where 
respondents in an administrative review demonstrated that they had no 
knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would 
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate 
applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 
2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). Thus, our practice of rescinding no-
shipment reviews did not comport with the clarification, since it was 
our intent to no longer liquidate the entries of resellers, of which a 
respondent company had no knowledge, at an ``as entered'' rate.

[[Page 79652]]

    Therefore, instead of rescinding the review with respect to Filmag, 
we find it appropriate to complete the review and issue liquidation 
instructions to CBP concerning entries for this company following the 
final results of the review. If we continue to find that Filmag had no 
reviewable transactions of subject merchandise in the final results, we 
will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise 
produced by Filmag but exported by other parties at the all-others 
rate. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 
FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).

Collapsing of Affiliated Companies

    In its original and supplemental questionnaire responses, Tectubi 
reported all home-market and U.S. sales of SSBW pipe fittings from 
Italy that involved itself and two affiliates, Raccordi Forgiati S.r.l. 
(Raccordi) and Allied International S.r.l. (Allied). Tectubi explained 
that, although it had made the only sales of subject merchandise during 
the period of review, it concluded that the questionnaire instructions 
required a response on behalf of all three companies based on their 
close affiliation with one another and Raccordi and Allied's 
involvement in the production and sale of SSBW pipe fittings.
    When considering whether to collapse affiliates and treat them as a 
single entity for purposes of an administrative review, we first 
consider their affiliation to one another. Because Tectubi and Raccordi 
are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Allied, we found that the three 
companies were affiliated under section 771(33)(E) and (F) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    We next found that, as both Tectubi and Raccordi produced the 
merchandise under review during the period of review, they had 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling of either facility in order to 
restructure their manufacturing priorities, as required under 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(1). We also found that there was a significant potential for 
the manipulation of price or production between the two companies, 
based on their common ownership, their shared president and chief 
executive officer (CEO), and their intertwined production operations. 
We found that, in the case of Tectubi's sales of Raccordi's product, 
they also shared sales information. Accordingly, because both 
collapsing criteria were met under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we concluded 
that Tectubi and Raccordi should be treated as a single entity for 
purposes of this review.
    In keeping with the Department's practice to consider the 
collapsing of affiliated processors and exporters, our consideration of 
collapsing extended to Allied as well. See Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004) (Shrimp from Brazil), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. As in Shrimp 
from Brazil, we found in the current review that the ownership, 
management and operations of a producer and an affiliated exporter were 
so intertwined that management could switch the role of producer and 
seller between the two companies without substantial retooling of 
either company. Specifically, we found that Raccordi and Allied shared 
the same president and CEO, as well as two managers and the staff of 
two company units, including that of the commercial unit. In terms of 
operations, we found that Allied acted as the primary sales arm for 
Raccordi for sales made to affiliated and unaffiliated parties in Italy 
and all export markets.
    As for the second criteria of 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we found a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production 
between Allied and the two producing companies. Apart from sharing 
ownership and management, the three companies: (1) Shared sales 
information, as Raccordi was dependent on the other two companies for 
sales promotion and processing; (2) coordinated their production and 
pricing decisions; (3) shared employees in the case of Raccordi and 
Allied; and (4) had significant transactions between them, due to 
Raccordi's reliance on Tectubi and Allied to market its products.
    Therefore, we concluded that Tectubi, Raccordi and Allied should be 
treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating a dumping margin 
pursuant to the provisions of 19 CFR 351.401(f). Consequently, we 
calculated a dumping margin based on the sales information reported by 
Tectubi for all three companies for these preliminary results.
    For a more detailed discussion of our collapsing decision, see the 
``Memorandum to the File'' regarding Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A.--Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 2010/2011 Administrative 
Review of Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy, dated 
December 15, 2011 (Tectubi Analysis Memorandum), at 2-5.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of the order, the product covered is certain stainless 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings. SSBW pipe fittings are under 14 inches 
in outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size), whether finished or 
unfinished. The product encompasses all grades of stainless steel and 
``commodity'' and ``specialty'' fittings. Specifically excluded from 
the definition are threaded, grooved, and bolted fittings, and fittings 
made from any material other than stainless steel.
    The butt-weld fittings subject to the order are generally 
designated under specification ASTM A403/A403M, the standard 
specification for Wrought Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Fittings, 
or its foreign equivalents (e.g., DIN or JIS specifications). This 
specification covers two general classes of fittings, WP and CR, of 
wrought austenitic stainless steel fittings of seamless and welded 
construction covered by the latest revision of ANSI B16.9, ANSI B16.11, 
and ANSI B16.28. Butt-weld fittings manufactured to specification ASTM 
A774, or its foreign equivalents, are also covered by the order.
    The order does not apply to cast fittings. Cast austenitic 
stainless steel pipe fittings are covered by specifications A351/A351M, 
A743/743M, and A744/A744M.
    The butt-weld fittings subject to the order is currently 
classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine if sales of subject merchandise were made in the 
United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price of 
U.S. sales to normal value, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 
777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the export price of U.S. sales 
within the period of review to the monthly, weighted-average normal 
value of foreign like product where there were sales made in the 
ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Price-to-Price 
Comparisons'' section below.

[[Page 79653]]

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
SSBW pipe fittings produced by the collapsed entity (hereinafter 
referred to as Tectubi), covered by the description in the ``Scope of 
the Order'' section above, and sold in the home market during the 
period of review, to be foreign like product for purposes of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to subject merchandise sold 
in the United States. We relied on the following product 
characteristics to identify identical or similar subject merchandise 
and foreign like product: (1) The type of fitting; (2) the grade of 
steel; (3) the type of feedstock used in the production of the fitting; 
(4) the nominal pipe sizes of the larger and, if applicable, smaller 
openings; and, (5) the wall thickness of the pipe. We found that 
Tectubi had reported a contemporaneous sale of identical foreign like 
product for each sale of subject merchandise it made to the United 
States during the period of review.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and to the 
extent practicable, we determine normal value based on sales made in 
the home market at the same level of trade as export price or the 
constructed export price. The normal-value level of trade is based on 
the starting prices of sales in the home market or, when normal value 
is based on constructed value, those of the sales from which we derived 
selling, general, and administrative expenses and profit. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1)(iii). For export price, the level of trade is based on 
the starting price, which is usually the price from the exporter to the 
importer. See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(1)(i). In this review, Tectubi reported 
only export-price sales to the United States.
    To determine if the home-market sales are made at a different level 
of trade than export sales, we examined stages in the marketing process 
and the selling functions performed along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(2). If home-market sales are at a different level of trade, 
as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which normal value is based and home-market sales made at the 
level of trade of the export transaction, and the difference affects 
price comparability, then we make a level-of-trade adjustment to normal 
value under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412. See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    In the home market, Tectubi identified the following two channels 
of distribution through which it had made sales during the period of 
review: (1) Direct sales made by Tectubi and, (2) indirect sales made 
through Allied to the first unaffiliated customer. Tectubi reported 
that all of the sales had been made at a single level of trade. Based 
on our analysis of Tectubi's selling functions, we found that the sales 
made in both channels of distribution were made at one level of trade. 
With respect to the U.S. market, Tectubi reported that its export-price 
sales were made through one channel of distribution--direct sales made 
by Tectubi to the U.S. unaffiliated customer--and that they had been 
made at one level of trade. Based on our analysis of the selling 
functions performed by Tectubi on these sales, we found them to be made 
at one export-price level of trade.
    We then compared the selling functions performed for the sales at 
the normal-value level of trade to those performed for the export-price 
level of trade and found that Tectubi performed a greater range of 
selling functions for the home-market sales than for the U.S. sales. 
But, because there was only one level of trade in the home market and 
no data were available to determine the existence of a pattern of price 
differences within that market and because we do not have any other 
information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a level-
of-trade adjustment, we were unable to calculate a level-of-trade 
adjustment. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we matched the 
export-price sales to home-market sales without making a level-of-trade 
adjustment to normal value. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    For a more detailed discussion of our analysis, see the ``Level of 
Trade'' section in the Tectubi Analysis Memorandum at 5 and 6.

Date of Sale

    The regulation at 19 CFR 351.401(i) states that the Department 
normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the producer's or 
exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date 
of sale. The regulation provides further that the Department may use a 
date other than the date of the invoice if the Secretary is satisfied 
that a different date better reflects the date on which the material 
terms of sale are established. The Department has a long-standing 
practice of finding that, where shipment date precedes invoice date, 
shipment date better reflects the date on which the material terms of 
sale are established. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams 
From Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    Tectubi reported that, in the home market, it generally ships the 
merchandise to the customer and issues the invoice near the end of the 
month of shipment. For this reason, it reported the date of shipment as 
the date of sale for all home-market sales. It reported invoice date as 
the date of sale for its U.S. sales, since Tectubi issues the invoice 
when the merchandise leaves the factory for all export sales.
    Based on this information and our practice, we found that date of 
shipment best reflected the date on which material terms of sales were 
established in the home market. We found that the invoice date best 
reflected this date in the U.S. market. Accordingly, we found these 
dates--the shipment date in the home market and the invoice date in the 
U.S. market--to be the most appropriate dates of sale for these 
preliminary results. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see 
the ``Date of Sale'' section of the Tectubi Analysis Memorandum at 6 
and 7.

Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Act defines export price as ``the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States, as adjusted under subsection (c).''
    For purposes of these preliminary results, we calculated export 
price for sales by Tectubi in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act 
because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation by the producer, 
outside of the United States to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States. We calculated export price based on the packed price 
that was charged to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. We made 
deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, in

[[Page 79654]]

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, including deductions 
for foreign inland freight (plant/warehouse to the port of exit), 
international freight, U.S. inland freight (port of entry to the 
unaffiliated customer), marine insurance, brokerage and handling and 
U.S. customs duties. We also made adjustments, where appropriate, for 
imputed credit and certain direct selling expenses, such as U.S. sales 
commissions and bank charges.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Home Market

    To determine if there was a sufficient volume of sales of SSBW pipe 
fittings in the home market during the period of review to serve as a 
viable basis for calculating normal value, we compared Tectubi's volume 
of home-market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its 
U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of the home-market 
sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales for subject merchandise, we determined 
that the home market was viable for comparison purposes, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

B. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated normal value based on prices to the first, 
unaffiliated customers. In our calculation of normal value, we 
accounted for certain sales discounts. We did not make deductions for 
movement or warehousing expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B) of 
the Act, as all sales were ex works. We made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS), in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. Specifically, we made a COS adjustment 
for imputed credit expenses. Although there were commissions incurred 
on the U.S. sales but not on home-market sales, we made no commission 
offset to normal value as Tectubi opted not to report its home-market 
indirect selling expenses. Finally, we deducted home-market packing 
costs to normal value and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period 
February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tectubi Raccordi S.p.A./Raccordi Forgiati S.r.l./Allied             0.00
 International S.r.l....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comments

    The Department will disclose the calculations used in our analysis 
to parties to this review within five days of the date of publication 
of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested 
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days 
after the time limit for submitting the case briefs. 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.
    Parties are reminded that any case or rebuttal briefs must be filed 
electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System, in 
compliance with the procedures set forth in Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; 
Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).
    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such argument or at a hearing, within 120 days of the 
date of publication of this notice.

Duty Assessment

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 
importer- or customer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for the 
merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales made during the period of 
review to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those 
duties. Where the duty assessment rates are above de minimis, we will 
instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by 
that importer in accordance with the requirements set forth in 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2).
    As noted above, the Department clarified its ``automatic 
assessment'' regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply 
to entries of subject merchandise during the period of review that were 
produced by Tectubi and for which it did not know that the merchandise 
was destined for the United States. Likewise, if we make a final 
determination of no shipments for Filmag, which certified that it made 
no review-period shipments of subject merchandise for which it had 
knowledge of U.S. destination, the clarification will apply to any 
entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by 
that company. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-
reviewed entries at the all-others rate of 26.59 percent, established 
in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of the order, if there 
is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the 
transaction. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings From Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, 66 FR 11257, 
11258 (Feb., 23, 2001). For a full discussion of this matter, see 
Assessment Policy Notice.
    We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after 
publication of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective, upon 
completion of the final results of this administrative review, for all 
shipments of SSBW pipe fittings from Italy entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption on or after the date of publication of the 
final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) The cash-deposit rate for Tectubi will be the rate established in 
the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 
percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), in 
which case the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed 
or 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, the 
prior review, or the LTFV investigation but the manufacturer is, the 
cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most

[[Page 79655]]

recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 
any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash-deposit rate 
will be the all-others rate of 26.59 percent. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 15, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-32839 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P