[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41629-41633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-816]


Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Intent To Not Revoke in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of the preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review and intent not to revoke in part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from respondent Ta Chen Stainless 
Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Ta Chen''), the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from 
Taiwan. This review covers one manufacturer and exporter of the subject 
merchandise. The period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 1998 through May 
31, 1999. We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below 
normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on entries of Ta Chen's 
merchandise during the period of review, in accordance with the 
Department's regulations (19 CFR 351.106 and 351.212(b)). The 
preliminary results are listed in the section titled ``Preliminary 
Results of Review,'' infra.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doreen Chen, Sally Gannon, or Robert 
Bolling, Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0408, (202) 482-0162 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are to the provisions effective January 
1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (1999).

Background

    On June 16, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(58 FR 33250) the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan. On June 9, 1999, we published in 
the Federal Register (64 FR 30962) a notice of opportunity to request 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan covering the period 
June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999. On June 30, 1999, petitioners, 
Markovitz Enterprises, Inc. (Flowline Division), Alloy Piping Products 
Inc., Gerlin, Inc., and Taylor Forge, requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of Ta Chen for the period of June 1, 
1998 through May 31, 1999. On June 30, 1999, Ta Chen also requested 
that we conduct an administrative review for the aforementioned period 
and requested revocation of the Department's antidumping duty order on 
pipe fittings from Taiwan. On July 29, 1999, the Department published a 
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review for 
the period of June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999 (64 FR 41075).
    On July 29, 2000, the Department issued to Ta Chen its antidumping 
questionnaire. On September 21, 1999, Ta Chen reported that it made 
sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of 
review (``POR'') in its response to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire. On October 13, 1999, Ta Chen submitted its response to 
Sections B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. On January 31, 
2000, the Department issued to Ta Chen the supplemental questionnaire 
to Sections A, B, C and D of the Department's questionnaire. On March 
10, 2000 and April 4, 2000, Ta Chen submitted its supplemental 
responses to Sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. 
On April 24, 2000, the Department issued to Ta Chen its second 
supplemental questionnaire to Sections A, B, C and D. On May 16 and 18, 
2000, Ta Chen submitted its second supplemental responses to Sections 
A, B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. On June 2, 2000, the 
Department issued to Ta Chen its third supplemental questionnaire to 
Sections A, B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire. On June 7, 
2000, Ta Chen submitted its third supplemental response to Sections A, 
B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire.
    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may 
extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit of 245 days. On March 6, 2000, the Department 
extended the time limits for these preliminary results to June 28, 2000 
in accordance with the Act. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Stainless 
Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, 65 FR 11766 (March 6, 2000).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products subject to this investigation are certain stainless 
steel butt-weld pipe fittings, whether finished or unfinished, under 14 
inches inside diameter. Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings (``pipe fittings'') are used to connect pipe sections in 
piping systems where conditions

[[Page 41630]]

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

Period of Review

    The POR for this administrative review is June 1, 1998 through May 
31, 1999.

Verification

    Due to administrative constraints, verification prior to the 
issuance of this notice of preliminary results was not conducted. The 
Department's regulations state, at section 351.307(b)(iii), that the 
Department will verify factual information upon which it relies in the 
final results of a revocation under section 751(d) of the Act, prior to 
issuing final results in an administrative review. Accordingly, the 
Department will verify the information to be used in the final results, 
after these preliminary results.

Product Comparison

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
pipe fittings produced by Ta Chen, covered by the description in the 
``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home 
market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of 
determining appropriate product comparisons to pipe fittings sold in 
the United States. In making the product comparisons, we matched 
foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by 
Ta Chen as follows (listed in order of preference): specification, 
seam, grade, size and schedule.
    Although section 771(16) of the Act states that foreign like 
products are merchandise produced in the same country by the same 
person, for purposes of these Preliminary Results, we have also 
considered merchandise purchased from other Taiwanese manufacturers and 
re-sold by Ta Chen that matched the aforementioned physical 
characteristics to be foreign like products because we did not have 
sufficient information to match subject merchandise to foreign like 
products on a producer-specific basis. However, we intend to seek 
further information on this issue at verification and will reconsider 
the issue for the Final Results based on any additional information 
obtained at verification. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared 
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis 
of the characteristics listed in the Department's March 1, 2000 
instructions, or to constructed value (``CV''), as appropriate.

Date of Sale

    The Department's regulations state that the Department will 
normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or 
producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, as the date 
of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If Commerce can establish ``a different 
date [that] better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale,'' Commerce may choose a 
different date. Id.
    In the present review, Ta Chen claimed that invoice date should be 
used as the date of sale in both the home market and U.S. market. Ta 
Chen stated that ``for both U.S. and Taiwan sales, there was only one 
type of sales agreement--i.e., through order confirmation.'' See Ta 
Chen's Supplemental Response at 4 (March 10, 2000). Ta Chen reported 
that there is no lag time between invoice and shipment. See Ta Chen's 
Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response, at 4 (May 16, 2000). 
Moreover, Ta Chen did not indicate any industry practice which would 
warrant the use of a date other than invoice date in determining date 
of sale.
    Accordingly, because we have no information demonstrating that 
another date is more appropriate, we preliminarily based date of sale 
on invoice date recorded in the ordinary course of business by the 
involved sellers and resellers of the subject merchandise in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.401(i). However, we intend to fully verify information 
concerning Ta Chen's claims that invoice date is the appropriate date 
of sale. Based on the outcome of our verification, we will determine 
whether it is appropriate to continue to use the date of invoice as the 
date of sale.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of subject merchandise by Ta Chen to the 
United States were made at below NV, we compared, where appropriate, 
the CEP to the NV, as described below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) 
of the Act, we compared the CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the 
monthly weighted-average NV of the foreign like product where there 
were sales at prices above the cost of production (``COP''), as 
discussed in the Cost of Production Analysis section, below.

Export Price/ Constructed Export Price

    Ta Chen reported both EP and CEP sales of subject merchandise for 
the POR. We analyzed the record evidence on Ta Chen's sales made to the 
United States and preliminarily determined that all sales to the United 
States should be classified as CEP.
    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 the purchaser 
for exportation to the United States. * * *'' Section 772(b) of the Act 
defines constructed export price as ``the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
produce or exporter. * * *'' Thus, a CEP sale is distinct from an EP 
sale in that it is a sale or agreement to sell to an unaffiliated 
customer that takes place in the United States and is executed by or 
for the producer/exporter or by a seller affiliated with the producer/
exporter, whereas a sale is classified as an EP sale where a producer 
or exporter sells directly to unaffiliated purchasers outside the 
United States.
    In the instant case, all of the sales at issue were ``back-to-
back'' sales; that is, Ta Chen sold pipe fittings to Ta Chen's U.S. 
affiliate, TCI, and then TCI sold the

[[Page 41631]]

pipe fittings to the unaffiliated U.S. customers at a marked-up price 
to account for TCI's commission and selling expenses. In addition, the 
record evidence demonstrates that for sales reported by Ta Chen as EP 
sales, the sale to the first unaffiliated customer was made between TCI 
and the unaffiliated customer in the United States. TCI takes title to 
subject merchandise, invoices the U.S. customer, and receives payment 
from the U.S. customer. In addition, TCI incurs seller's risk, makes 
agreements with commission agents, relays orders and price requests 
from the U.S. customer to Ta Chen, and pays for containerization 
expenses, U.S. customs broker charges, U.S. antidumping duties and 
international freight. See Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response 
(May 16, 2000) at 5. Ta Chen also stated that on occasion the U.S. 
customer will initiate the sale with TCI or TCI will initiate the sale 
with the customer. Id.
    Based on these facts, we have determined that these sales 
originally reported as EP by Ta Chen meet the standard for CEP since 
the first sale to an unaffiliated customer occurred in the United 
States and was between TCI and the U.S. purchaser. Therefore, we 
reclassified the EP sales originally reported by Ta Chen as CEP sales.
    Having determined such sales are CEP, we calculated the price of Ta 
Chen's United States sales based on CEP in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act. We calculated CEP based on FOB or delivered prices 
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
deducted discounts. Also where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(d)(1), the Department deducted commissions, direct selling expenses 
and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, 
which related to commercial activity in the United States. We also made 
deductions for movement expenses, which include foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, containerization 
expense, harbor construction tax, marine insurance, U.S. inland 
freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties. Finally, 
pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment for CEP 
profit. In accordance with Department practice, we recalculated credit 
expenses for CEP sales by basing credit on Ta Chen's U.S. dollar-
denominated short-term borrowing rate, rather than on Ta Chen's home 
market currency-denominated short-term borrowing rate. See Import 
Administration Policy Bulletin, Imputed Credit Expenses and Interest 
rates (February 23, 1998). See Analysis Memo at page 9.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, as discussed below, we 
calculated normal value (``NV'') as noted in the ``Price-to-CV 
Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' sections of this 
notice.

1. Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or 
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared Ta Chen's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Because 
Ta Chen's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
was viable. We therefore based NV on home market sales.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production in our 
last administrative review, the most-recently completed segment of this 
proceeding,\1\ we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales by Ta Chen in its home market were made at prices below the COP, 
pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a COP 
analysis of home market sales by Ta Chen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Stainless Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan; 
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
67855 (December 9, 1998). For further discussion, see Stainless 
Steel Butt Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan; Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 30710, 30712 (June 
5, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials 
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general 
and administrative expenses (``G&A''), interest expenses, and packing 
costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by Ta Chen in its original 
and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For these preliminary 
results, we did not make any adjustments to Ta Chen's submitted costs.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    We compared the weighted-average COP for Ta Chen to home market 
sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of 
the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at 
prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home market 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were 
made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, 
and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific 
basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any movement 
charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of Ta Chen's sales of a given product were at prices less than 
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of Ta Chen's sales 
of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
determined that such sales have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we use POR average 
costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product 
were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.
D. Calculation of Constructed Value
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of Ta Chen's cost of materials, fabrication, G&A 
(including interest expenses), U.S. packing costs, direct and indirect 
selling expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by Ta Chen in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption 
in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the actual 
weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the cost of production (``COP''), we

[[Page 41632]]

based NV on prices to home market customers. We calculated NV based on 
prices to unaffiliated home market customers. Where appropriate, we 
deducted early payment discounts, credit expenses, and inland freight. 
We also made adjustments, where applicable, for home market indirect 
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in CEP comparisons. We made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In 
accordance with the Department's practice, where there were no usable 
contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale observation, we based NV on CV.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP transaction. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market, or when NV 
is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 
and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than CEP, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and 
the difference affects price comparability as manifested in a pattern 
of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based 
and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the 
CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference 
in levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 
(November 19, 1997).
    In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondent, we 
examined all types of selling functions and activities reported in 
respondent's questionnaire response on LOT. In analyzing whether 
separate LOTs existed in this review, we found that no single selling 
function was sufficient to warrant a separate LOT in the home market. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27371 (May 19, 1997).
    Ta Chen reported one LOT in the home market based on two channels 
of distribution: trading companies and end-users. We examined the 
reported selling functions and found that Ta Chen provides 
substantially the same selling functions to its home market customers 
regardless of channel of distribution. These selling functions include 
research and development and technical assistance, packing, after-sale 
services, and freight and delivery arrangement. We therefore 
preliminarily conclude that the selling functions between the reported 
channels of distribution are sufficiently similar to consider them as 
one LOT in the comparison market.
    Because Ta Chen reported that all of its U.S. sales are made 
through a single customer category (i.e., TCI acting as a distributor), 
Ta Chen is claiming that there is only one LOT in the U.S. market. We 
examined the selling functions for CEP sales, and we preliminarily 
agree with Ta Chen that its U.S. sales constitute a single LOT.
    When we compared the LOT of the CEP to Ta Chen's home market LOT, 
we found that Ta Chen provided no strategic or economic planning, 
market research, business system development assistance, personnel-
training, engineering, advertising, procurement services, inventory 
maintenance, or post-sale warehousing at the CEP or home market LOT. Ta 
Chen reported that it provided moderate-to-low technical assistance at 
its home market LOT, while providing none at its CEP level. 
Additionally, Ta Chen reported that it provided low after-sales 
services at its home market LOT, while providing none at its CEP level. 
However, our analysis of the selling functions performed by Ta Chen in 
both markets leads us to conclude that any differences in selling 
activities are not significant. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 
all sales in the home market and the U.S. market were made at the same 
LOT. Therefore, we have not made a LOT adjustment because all price 
comparisons are at the same LOT and an adjustment pursuant to section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not appropriate. Additionally, because we 
found that the LOT in the home market matched the LOT of the CEP 
transactions, we did not provide a CEP offset by adjusting normal value 
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Revocation

    Under section 351.222(b) of the Department's regulations, the 
Department may partially revoke an order with respect to a company if 
that producer or exporter has sold the merchandise at not less than 
normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years. On June 
30, 1999, Ta Chen, in its capacity as a Taiwanese producer and exporter 
of subject merchandise, requested that the Department revoke the 
antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from Taiwan with respect to Ta 
Chen. Ta Chen stated that it sold the subject merchandise at not less 
than normal value for a period of at least three consecutive years, 
including the current period under administrative review, and that it 
sold the subject merchandise in commercially significant quantities to 
the United States during each of these three years. Ta Chen also stated 
that it would not sell the subject merchandise at less than normal 
value to the United States in the future and agreed to reinstatement of 
the order against Ta Chen, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that Ta Chen sold the 
subject merchandise at less than normal value, subsequent to the 
revocation.
    On May 26, 2000, the Department requested that Ta Chen provide 
volume and value data on its exports and sales of subject merchandise 
for the three consecutive years. Ta Chen provided this data in a June 
5, 2000 submission, which supported Ta Chen's statement that it sold 
subject merchandise in commercially significant quantities to the 
United States during these three years.
    The three review periods on which Ta Chen is basing its request for 
revocation consist of: (1) the period for 6/1/96 through 5/31/97, for 
which the Department found a de minimis margin of 0.34 percent; (2) the 
period for 6/1/97 through 5/31/98, for which no administrative review 
was conducted; and (3) the period for 6/1/98 through 5/31/99, for which 
the Department is currently conducting an administrative review.
    The Department is considering Ta Chen's request for revocation, and 
shall review the relevant information. Because we did not find a de 
minimis margin for these preliminary results, we preliminarily conclude 
that the criteria for revocation have not been satisfied, and we intend 
not to revoke the order as to Ta Chen, pending verification after these 
preliminary results.

[[Page 41633]]

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the 
U.S. sales as published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 
Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily 
exchange rate in effect on the date of sale of subject merchandise in 
order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily 
rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's 
practice, we have determined, as a general matter, that a fluctuation 
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 
percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
8915, 8918 (March 6, 1996) and Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency 
Conversions, 61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996. The benchmark is defined as the 
rolling average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we 
determined a fluctuation existed, we substituted the benchmark for the 
daily rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 
1998, through May 31, 1999:

       Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                                                              average
             Producer/manufacturer/ exporter                  margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta Chen.................................................            8.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to any party to the proceeding, within 
five days of publication of this notice, the calculations performed (19 
CFR 351.224(b)). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 
days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days 
after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and 
rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs 
or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. Parties who submit arguments 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. Further, we would appreicate 
it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department 
with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on 
diskette. The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 
120 days after the publication of this notice.
    Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall 
determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to Customs. The final results of this review 
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries 
of merchandise covered by the results and for future deposits of 
estimated duties. For duty assessment purposes, we calculated an 
importer-specific assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margins 
calculated for the U.S. sales to the importer by the total entered 
value of these sales. This rate will be used for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on all entries of the subject merchandise by that 
importer during the POR.
    If found that revocation is warranted for Ta Chen, it will apply to 
all unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced by Ta Chen, 
exported to the United States and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after June 1, 1999, the first day after the 
period under review.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1) 
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ta Chen, the only reviewed 
company, will be that established in the final results of this review; 
(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not covered in 
this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) If the exporter 
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will 
be the rate established in the most 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 continue to be the ``all 
other'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, which was 51.01 
percent.
    This notice 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 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 28, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-17105 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P