Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the Philippines: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 50894-50896 [2018-21983]
Download as PDF
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
50894
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Notices
a request for a hearing is made, parties
will be notified of the time and date for
the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230.12
Commerce intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review,
including the results of its analysis
raised in any written briefs, not later
than 120 days after the publication date
of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, unless otherwise
extended.13
merchandise they sold to the
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading
company, or exporter) was destined for
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.15
We intend to issue liquidation
instructions to CBP 15 days after
publication of the final results of this
review.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the
administrative review, Commerce shall
determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
where DOSCO and HiSteel reported the
entered value of their U.S. sales, we
calculated importer-specific ad valorem
duty assessment rates based on the ratio
of the total amount of dumping
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of the sales for which
entered value was reported. Where the
respondents did not report entered
value, we calculated the entered value
in order to calculate the assessment rate.
Where either the respondent’s weightedaverage dumping margin is zero or de
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR
351.106(c)(1), or an importer-specific
rate is zero or de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate
entries without regard to antidumping
duties. We intend to instruct CBP to
take into account the ‘‘provisional
measures deposit cap,’’ in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.212(d).
For the companies which were not
selected for individual review, we will
assign an assessment rate based on the
average 14 of the cash deposit rates
calculated for DOSCO and HiSteel,
excluding any which are de minimis or
determined entirely based on adverse
facts available. The final results of this
review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the
final results of this review and for future
deposits of estimated duties, where
applicable.
Commerce’s ‘‘automatic assessment’’
practice will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced
by companies included in these final
results of review for which the reviewed
companies did not know that the
The following deposit requirements
will be effective 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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The
cash deposit rate for the exporters listed
above will be that established in the
final results of this review, except if the
rate is less than 0.50 percent and,
therefore, de minimis within the
meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in
which case the cash deposit rate will be
zero; (2) for previously investigated
companies not participating in this
review, the cash deposit will continue
to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recently
completed segment; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this 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 segment
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit
rate for all other manufacturers or
exporters will continue to be 3.24
percent, the all-others rate made
effective by the LTFV investigation.16
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
12 See
19 CFR 351.310(d).
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
14 This rate was calculated as discussed in
footnote 4, above.
13 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:20 Oct 09, 2018
Jkt 247001
Cash Deposit Requirements
requirement could result in Commerce’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: October 3, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in
the Preliminary Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Companies Not Selected for Individual
Examination
V. Discussion of the Methodology
a. Date of Sale
b. Determination of Comparison Method
c. Results of Differential Pricing Analysis
d. Product Comparisons
e. Export Price/Constructed Export Price
f. Normal Value
i. Particular Market Situation
ii. Home Market Viability and Comparison
Market
iii. Level of Trade
iv. Affiliated-Party Transactions and
Arm’s-Length Test
v. Cost of Production Analysis
1. Cost Averaging Methodology
a. Significant of Cost Changes
b. Linkage Between Sales and Cost
Information
2. Calculation of COP
3. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
4. Results of the COP Test
vi. Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Comparison Market Prices
vii. Calculation of Normal Value Based on
Constructed Value
VI. Currency Conversion
VII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2018–21980 Filed 10–9–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
15 For
a full discussion of this practice, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954
(May 6, 2003).
16 See Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Korea,
Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey: Antidumping
Duty Orders, 81 FR 62865, 62866 (September 13,
2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–565–801]
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
From the Philippines: Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) finds that Enlin Steel
Corporation (Enlin), Vinox Corporation
(aka Vinoc Corporation) (Vinox) and E
N Corporation should be treated as a
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Notices
single entity for purposes of cash
deposit and liquidation rates.
DATES: Applicable October 10, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
Geiger or Fred Baker, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–2057 or (202) 482–2924,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
On February 23, 2001, Commerce
published the antidumping duty (AD)
order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings (pipe fittings) from the
Philippines.1 On May 24, 2018, Core
Pipe Products, Inc., Shaw Alloy Piping
Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge
Stainless, Inc. (collectively, the
petitioners) requested that Commerce
conduct a CCR pursuant to 751(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act)
and 19 CFR 351.216(b).2
The petitioners alleged in their
request that Enlin had been shipping
subject merchandise to the United
States at the ‘‘all-others’’ antidumping
duty cash deposit rate in effect for
Enlin’s affiliates Vinox and E N
Corporation, rather than at the
company-specific rate of 33.81 percent
established for Enlin in the less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation. The
petitioners also alleged that Vinox and
E N Corporation were, and are currently,
the same business entity as Enlin. The
petitioners, therefore, requested that
Commerce conduct a CCR to determine
that Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation
are affiliated companies that should be
treated as a single entity. They also
requested that Commerce notify U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
that it should impose and collect
antidumping duty deposits on all
unliquidated entries made by Vinox and
E N Corporation at Enlin’s 33.81 percent
rate. The petitioners submitted a
supplement to their request on May 31,
2018.3 Enlin filed a letter objecting to
the petitioners’ request for a CCR on
1 See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and
the Philippines, 66 FR 11257 (February 23, 2001)
(the Order).
2 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines—
Petitioners’ Request for Initiation of Changed
Circumstances Review,’’ dated May 24, 2018
(Review Request).
3 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines—
Petitioners’ Supplement to Changed Circumstances
Review Request,’’ dated May 31, 2018 (Request
Supplement).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:20 Oct 09, 2018
Jkt 247001
June 26, 2018.4 The petitioners filed a
response to Enlin’s letter on June 26,
2018.5 On July 5, 2018, we extended the
deadline for initiating the CCR,6 and
published the initiation of this CCR on
August 14, 2018.7
On August 20, 2018, we issued a
questionnaire to Enlin, requesting
further information about its
relationship with Vinox and E N
Corporation.8 On September 3, 2018,
Enlin filed a response,9 stating that it
agreed with the petitioners’ requests
that: (1) Enlin, Vinox, and E N
Corporation should be treated as the
same entity pursuant to 19 CFR
351.401(f); and (2) Commerce should
instruct CBP to ‘‘impose and collect
antidumping duty deposits on all
unliquidated entries made by Vinox and
E N Corp{oration}’’ of pipe fittings at
the 33.81 percent cash deposit rate
‘‘previously established for Enlin on
their shipments of subject merchandise
from the Philippines.’’ 10 Due to the
complexities of this proceeding, we
extended the deadline for issuing the
final results of this changed
circumstances review by an additional
eleven days, until October 1, 2018, and
later by an additional eight days, until
October 9, 2018.11 On September 24,
2018, the petitioners filed a response to
Enlin’s questionnaire response, urging
Commerce to apply the 33.81 percent
cash deposit rate retroactively to all
unliquidated entries made by Vinox and
E N Corporation.12
4 See
Enlin’s Letter, dated June 26, 2018.
Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Order on Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
from the Philippines—Petitioners’ Rebuttal to
Respondents’ Opposition to Changed
Circumstances Review Request,’’ dated June 26,
2018.
6 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Extension
of Time for Changed Circumstances Review
Initiation Decision,’’ dated July 5, 2018.
7 See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from
the Philippines: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 83 FR 40227
(August 14, 2018) (Initiation Notice).
8 See Commerce’s Letter, ‘‘Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines:
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review
Questionnaire,’’ dated August 20, 2018.
9 See Enlin’s Letter, ‘‘Stainless Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Questionnaire
Response,’’ dated September 3, 2018 (Questionnaire
Response).
10 See Review Request at 2 and 5; see also Request
Supplement at 1, 2, and 4.
11 See Memorandum, ‘‘Stainless Steel Butt-Weld
Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Extension of
Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review,’’ dated September
20, 2018, and Memorandum ‘‘Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines: Extension
of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review,’’ dated October 1,
2018.
12 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pine Fittings from the Philippines:
5 See
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50895
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the Order
are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings. Certain stainless steel butt-weld
pipe fittings are under 14 inches in
outside diameter (based on nominal
pipe size), whether finished or
unfinished. The products encompass 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 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. Pipe 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 stainless steel butt-weld pipe
fittings subject to the Order are
currently classifiable under subheading
7307.23.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this Order is dispositive.
Final Results of the Changed
Circumstances Review
Based on evidence on the record,13
and Enlin’s assertion that it should be
considered a single entity with Vinox
and E N Corporation,14 we find that
Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are
affiliated parties which should be
treated as a single entity. While,
historically, Commerce has not applied
19 CFR 351.401(f) in the context of
CCRs, we find that for purposes of this
particular segment of the proceeding,
the criteria in the regulation are relevant
to ensure that the administration and
effect of the underlying Order are not
undermined.
Petitioners’ Response to Enlin’s Questionnaire
Response,’’ dated September 24, 2018.
13 See Review Request at Attachments 1–7; see
also Request Supplement at Attachments 1–4.
14 See Questionnaire Response.
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
50896
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2018 / Notices
The petitioners claim that Enlin,
Vinox, and E N Corporation are
affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), based on
Enlin’s direct statement of affiliation
with Vinox in its Section A
questionnaire response of the initial
investigation, evidence of control over
Vinox and E N Corporation by the same
individuals or family members, similar
or identical company addresses, and a
common Canadian trademark.15
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f),
Commerce will collapse affiliated
entities when there is: (1) Evidence that
the entities have production facilities
for similar or identical products that
would not require substantial retooling
of either facility in order to restructure
manufacturing priorities; and (2) a
significant potential for the
manipulation of price or production,
such as through common ownership,
overlap of directors and managers, and
intertwined operations. There is
evidence on the record to support that
these criteria have been met.16
Specifically, record evidence
demonstrates that: (1) Enlin, Vinox, and
E N Corporation are affiliated parties
that each produce or have produced the
subject merchandise and have shipped
it to the same or similar importers in the
United States, and (2) there is a
‘‘significant potential for the
manipulation of price or production,’’ if
we do not collapse the companies due
to the level of common direction or
control.17
Accordingly, given the evidence
provided by the petitioners,18 along
with Enlin’s acknowledgement that the
three companies should be treated as a
single entity and that CBP should
collect antidumping duty cash deposits
on all unliquidated entries made by
Vinox and E N Corporation at the rate
assigned to Enlin,19 we find that: (1)
There were sufficient changed
circumstances in the trading patterns
and activities of Enlin, Vinox, and E N
Corporation that the petitioners allege
resulted in a possible evasion of the
Order; (2) Enlin, Vinox, and E N
Corporation should be collapsed as a
single entity; (3) the collapsed entity is
subject to the cash deposit rate assigned
to Enlin in the LTFV investigation; 20
and (4) the results of this CCR are
applied retroactively from the
publication date of the Order.21
Instructions to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection
As a result of this determination, we
find that both Vinox and E N
Corporation are subject to the cash
deposit rate currently assigned to Enlin
(i.e., 33.81 percent).22 Therefore,
Commerce will instruct CBP to continue
suspension of liquidation and to collect
estimated antidumping duties for all
unliquidated entries and shipments of
subject merchandise produced and
exported by Enlin, Vinox, and/or E N
Corporation at the cash deposit rate of
33.81 percent currently assigned to
Enlin, from the date of the publication
of the Order.23 This cash deposit
requirement shall remain in effect until
further notice. We will also instruct CBP
to liquidate any unliquidated entries
and shipments of subject merchandise
produced and exported by Vinox and/or
E N Corporation made during periods
for which Commerce has completed an
administrative review or for which no
administrative review was requested
(i.e., through and including January 31,
2018) at the 33.81 percent rate currently
assigned to Enlin.
Notification to Parties
This notice is the only reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing
these results in accordance with
sections 751(b)(1) and (4) and 777(i) of
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 19
CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i).
Dated: October 3, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations,
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018–21983 Filed 10–9–18; 8:45 am]
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
15 See
Review Request; see also Request
Supplement.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 See Questionnaire Response, where Enlin
stated that it agreed with the petitioners’ request (in
the Review Request at 2 and 5, and Request
Supplement at 1, 2, and 4).
20 See the Order, 66 FR 11257.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:20 Oct 09, 2018
Jkt 247001
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
21 See, e.g., Large Power Transformers from the
Republic of Korea: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
83 FR 45094 (September 5, 2018), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
5–6.
22 See the Order, 66 FR 11257.
23 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–844]
Certain Lined Paper Products From
India: Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; Calendar Year 2016
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(Commerce) preliminarily determines
that Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT
Ltd. (Goldenpalm), a producer/exporter
of lined paper products (lined paper)
from India, received countervailable
subsidies during the period of review
(POR) January 1, 2016, through
December 31, 2016. We invite interested
parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
DATES: Applicable October 10, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III,
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–1009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On September 28, 2006, Commerce
issued the countervailing duty (CVD)
order on lined paper from India.1
Goldenpalm requested that Commerce
conduct an administrative review of the
Lined Paper Order with respect to the
company, and on November 13, 2017,
Commerce published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of the CVD order
for Goldenpalm for the POR.2 On
January 23, 2018, Commerce exercised
its discretion to toll all deadlines
affected by the closure of the Federal
Government from January 20 through
22, 2018.3 On May 31, 2018, Commerce
extended the time period for issuing
these preliminary results by 120 days,
until October 3,2018, in accordance
1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China;
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the
People’s Republic of China; and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949
(September 28, 2006) (Lined Paper Order).
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR
52268 (November 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice).
3 See memorandum, ‘‘Deadlines Affected by the
Shutdown of the Federal Government,’’ dated
January 23, 2018. All deadlines in this segment of
the proceeding have been extended by three days.
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50894-50896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-565-801]
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From the Philippines:
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that Enlin Steel
Corporation (Enlin), Vinox Corporation (aka Vinoc Corporation) (Vinox)
and E N Corporation should be treated as a
[[Page 50895]]
single entity for purposes of cash deposit and liquidation rates.
DATES: Applicable October 10, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Geiger or Fred Baker, AD/CVD
Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2057 or (202) 482-2924,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 23, 2001, Commerce published the antidumping duty (AD)
order on stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings (pipe fittings) from
the Philippines.\1\ On May 24, 2018, Core Pipe Products, Inc., Shaw
Alloy Piping Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge Stainless, Inc.
(collectively, the petitioners) requested that Commerce conduct a CCR
pursuant to 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and
19 CFR 351.216(b).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from Italy, Malaysia, and the Philippines, 66 FR 11257
(February 23, 2001) (the Order).
\2\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from the Philippines--Petitioners' Request for Initiation
of Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated May 24, 2018 (Review
Request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners alleged in their request that Enlin had been
shipping subject merchandise to the United States at the ``all-others''
antidumping duty cash deposit rate in effect for Enlin's affiliates
Vinox and E N Corporation, rather than at the company-specific rate of
33.81 percent established for Enlin in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation. The petitioners also alleged that Vinox and E N
Corporation were, and are currently, the same business entity as Enlin.
The petitioners, therefore, requested that Commerce conduct a CCR to
determine that Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are affiliated
companies that should be treated as a single entity. They also
requested that Commerce notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
that it should impose and collect antidumping duty deposits on all
unliquidated entries made by Vinox and E N Corporation at Enlin's 33.81
percent rate. The petitioners submitted a supplement to their request
on May 31, 2018.\3\ Enlin filed a letter objecting to the petitioners'
request for a CCR on June 26, 2018.\4\ The petitioners filed a response
to Enlin's letter on June 26, 2018.\5\ On July 5, 2018, we extended the
deadline for initiating the CCR,\6\ and published the initiation of
this CCR on August 14, 2018.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from the Philippines--Petitioners' Supplement to Changed
Circumstances Review Request,'' dated May 31, 2018 (Request
Supplement).
\4\ See Enlin's Letter, dated June 26, 2018.
\5\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Antidumping Duty Order on
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the Philippines--
Petitioners' Rebuttal to Respondents' Opposition to Changed
Circumstances Review Request,'' dated June 26, 2018.
\6\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from the Philippines: Extension of Time for Changed
Circumstances Review Initiation Decision,'' dated July 5, 2018.
\7\ See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the
Philippines: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances
Review, 83 FR 40227 (August 14, 2018) (Initiation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 20, 2018, we issued a questionnaire to Enlin, requesting
further information about its relationship with Vinox and E N
Corporation.\8\ On September 3, 2018, Enlin filed a response,\9\
stating that it agreed with the petitioners' requests that: (1) Enlin,
Vinox, and E N Corporation should be treated as the same entity
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f); and (2) Commerce should instruct CBP to
``impose and collect antidumping duty deposits on all unliquidated
entries made by Vinox and E N Corp{oration{time} '' of pipe fittings at
the 33.81 percent cash deposit rate ``previously established for Enlin
on their shipments of subject merchandise from the Philippines.'' \10\
Due to the complexities of this proceeding, we extended the deadline
for issuing the final results of this changed circumstances review by
an additional eleven days, until October 1, 2018, and later by an
additional eight days, until October 9, 2018.\11\ On September 24,
2018, the petitioners filed a response to Enlin's questionnaire
response, urging Commerce to apply the 33.81 percent cash deposit rate
retroactively to all unliquidated entries made by Vinox and E N
Corporation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Commerce's Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from the Philippines: Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review Questionnaire,'' dated August 20, 2018.
\9\ See Enlin's Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Fittings from the Philippines: Questionnaire Response,'' dated
September 3, 2018 (Questionnaire Response).
\10\ See Review Request at 2 and 5; see also Request Supplement
at 1, 2, and 4.
\11\ See Memorandum, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings
from the Philippines: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated September 20,
2018, and Memorandum ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from
the Philippines: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,'' dated October 1,
2018.
\12\ See Petitioners' Letter, ``Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pine
Fittings from the Philippines: Petitioners' Response to Enlin's
Questionnaire Response,'' dated September 24, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the Order are certain stainless steel butt-
weld pipe fittings. Certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings are
under 14 inches in outside diameter (based on nominal pipe size),
whether finished or unfinished. The products encompass 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 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. Pipe
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 stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings subject to the Order
are currently classifiable under subheading 7307.23.0000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive.
Final Results of the Changed Circumstances Review
Based on evidence on the record,\13\ and Enlin's assertion that it
should be considered a single entity with Vinox and E N
Corporation,\14\ we find that Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are
affiliated parties which should be treated as a single entity. While,
historically, Commerce has not applied 19 CFR 351.401(f) in the context
of CCRs, we find that for purposes of this particular segment of the
proceeding, the criteria in the regulation are relevant to ensure that
the administration and effect of the underlying Order are not
undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Review Request at Attachments 1-7; see also Request
Supplement at Attachments 1-4.
\14\ See Questionnaire Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50896]]
The petitioners claim that Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation are
affiliated, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.102(b), based on Enlin's direct statement of affiliation with Vinox
in its Section A questionnaire response of the initial investigation,
evidence of control over Vinox and E N Corporation by the same
individuals or family members, similar or identical company addresses,
and a common Canadian trademark.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Review Request; see also Request Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), Commerce will collapse affiliated
entities when there is: (1) Evidence that the entities have production
facilities for similar or identical products that would not require
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure
manufacturing priorities; and (2) a significant potential for the
manipulation of price or production, such as through common ownership,
overlap of directors and managers, and intertwined operations. There is
evidence on the record to support that these criteria have been
met.\16\ Specifically, record evidence demonstrates that: (1) Enlin,
Vinox, and E N Corporation are affiliated parties that each produce or
have produced the subject merchandise and have shipped it to the same
or similar importers in the United States, and (2) there is a
``significant potential for the manipulation of price or production,''
if we do not collapse the companies due to the level of common
direction or control.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, given the evidence provided by the petitioners,\18\
along with Enlin's acknowledgement that the three companies should be
treated as a single entity and that CBP should collect antidumping duty
cash deposits on all unliquidated entries made by Vinox and E N
Corporation at the rate assigned to Enlin,\19\ we find that: (1) There
were sufficient changed circumstances in the trading patterns and
activities of Enlin, Vinox, and E N Corporation that the petitioners
allege resulted in a possible evasion of the Order; (2) Enlin, Vinox,
and E N Corporation should be collapsed as a single entity; (3) the
collapsed entity is subject to the cash deposit rate assigned to Enlin
in the LTFV investigation; \20\ and (4) the results of this CCR are
applied retroactively from the publication date of the Order.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ See Questionnaire Response, where Enlin stated that it
agreed with the petitioners' request (in the Review Request at 2 and
5, and Request Supplement at 1, 2, and 4).
\20\ See the Order, 66 FR 11257.
\21\ See, e.g., Large Power Transformers from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review, 83 FR 45094 (September 5, 2018), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
As a result of this determination, we find that both Vinox and E N
Corporation are subject to the cash deposit rate currently assigned to
Enlin (i.e., 33.81 percent).\22\ Therefore, Commerce will instruct CBP
to continue suspension of liquidation and to collect estimated
antidumping duties for all unliquidated entries and shipments of
subject merchandise produced and exported by Enlin, Vinox, and/or E N
Corporation at the cash deposit rate of 33.81 percent currently
assigned to Enlin, from the date of the publication of the Order.\23\
This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further
notice. We will also instruct CBP to liquidate any unliquidated entries
and shipments of subject merchandise produced and exported by Vinox
and/or E N Corporation made during periods for which Commerce has
completed an administrative review or for which no administrative
review was requested (i.e., through and including January 31, 2018) at
the 33.81 percent rate currently assigned to Enlin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See the Order, 66 FR 11257.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Parties
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with
sections 751(b)(1) and (4) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216
and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i).
Dated: October 3, 2018.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-21983 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P