10142 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

1On April 6, 2006, the Department published a 

notice initiating new shipper reviews of Kunj, 

Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell. See Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India: Notice of of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 

17439 (April 6, 2006). On September 29, 2006, we 

rescinded the new shipper reviews with respect to 

Micro, Pradeep, and Rollwell. See Certain Forged 

Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 57468 

(September 29, 2006). 

review covers the period June 1, 2005, 

through May 31, 2006. The preliminary 

results of review are currently due no 

later than March 2, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. The Act further provides, 

however, that the Department may 

extend that 245-day period to 365 days 

if it determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

folding metal tables and chairs from the 

PRC within this time limit. Specifically, 

due to complex issues related to the 

selection of surrogate values, we find 

that additional time is needed to 

complete these preliminary results. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

is extending the time period for 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review by 90 days until May 31, 

2007. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4048 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–809] 

Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges 

From India; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Partial Rescission and Intent 

To Rescind 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

forged stainless steel flanges (stainless 

steel flanges) from India manufactured 

by Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay), 

Rollwell Forge, Ltd. (Rollwell), and 

Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd. (Shree 

Ganesh). The period of review (POR) 

covers February 1, 2005, through 

January 31, 2006. We preliminarily 

determine that Echjay did not sell 

subject merchandise in the United 

States at less than normal value (NV) 

during the POR. In addition, we 

preliminarily determine to apply an 

adverse facts available (AFA) rate to 

Rollwell’s sales. We also preliminarily 

determine that Shree Ganesh had no 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit argument in these 

proceedings are requested to submit 

with the argument (1) a statement of the 

issues and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred 

Baker or Robert James, 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) 482–2924 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 9, 1994, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel flanges from India. See 

Amended Final Determination and 

Antidumping Duty Order; Certain 

Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from 

India, 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) 

(Amended Final Determination). On 

February 1, 2006, the Department 

published the Notice of Opportunity to 

Request Administrative Review for this 

order covering the POR. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 

(February 1, 2006). On February 28, 

2006, we received requests for an 

administrative review for the period 

February 1, 2005, through January 31, 

2006, from Echjay and Shree Ganesh. 

We also received requests for a new 

shipper review and, failing that, an 

administrative review,1 from Kunj 

Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (Kunj), Micro Forge 

(India) Ltd. (Micro), Pradeep Metals 

Limited (Pradeep), and Rollwell Forge, 

Ltd. (Rollwell). On April 5, 2006, we 

initiated administrative reviews of the 

six companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Deferral of 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 17077 

(April 5, 2006). 

On November 1, 2006, we extended 

the time limit for the preliminary results 

of this administrative review to 

February 28, 2007. See Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Forged 

Stainless Steel Flanges from India, 71 

FR 64245 (November 1, 2006). 

Echjay 

On April 5, 2006, the Department 

issued its initial questionnaire to 

Echjay. Echjay submitted its section A 

response on May 8, 2006, and its section 

B and C responses on May 30, 2006. The 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire on November 1, 2006, to 

which Echjay responded on November 

15, 2006. On December 27, 2006, Echjay 

submitted audited financial statements, 

revised section B and C data and 

calculations for fields that changed as a 

result of changes in the financial 

statement. On February 27, 2007, Echjay 

submitted a sales reconciliation. 

On December 21, 2006, Echjay 

requested revocation on the basis it had 

three years of zero or de minimis 

margins. Echjay also submitted the 

required certifications pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.222. However, this request was 

filed nearly ten months after the 

deadline for filing such requests under 

19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). This delay 

prevented the Department from timely 

notifying interested parties of Echjay’s 

possible revocation, as well as planning 

and conducting verification, both of 

which are required by 19 CFR 

351.222(f). The Department will not 

therefore entertain this request in this 

review. 

Rollwell 

The Department sent its 

questionnaires to Rollwell on April 5, 

2006. Rollwell submitted its response to 

the section A questionnaire on May 8, 

2006. It submitted its responses to 

sections B and C on May 31, 2006. The 

Department issued a supplemental 

section A, B, and C questionnaire to 

Rollwell on November 1, 2006. Rollwell 

submitted its response to that 

supplemental questionnaire on 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10143 

2Micro and Pradeep are the subjects of a semiannual new shipper review for the period February 

1, 2006, through July 31, 2006. See Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India: Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 

59081 (October 6, 2006). 

3As previously indicated, we rescinded the new 

shipper reviews with respect to Micro, Pradeep, and 

Rollwell for the period February 1, 2005, through 

July 31, 2006. See Certain Forged Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of 

New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 57468 (September 29, 

2006). 

November 21, 2006. Rollwell also 

submitted a revised sales listings on 

December 14, 2006. On February 2, 

2007, the Department issued a second 

supplemental questionnaire to Rollwell 

to which Rollwell submitted its 

response on February 12, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain forged stainless steel flanges, 

both finished and not finished, 

generally manufactured to specification 

ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such 

as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope 

includes five general types of flanges. 

They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld 

line connection; threaded, used for 

threaded line connections; slip-on and 

lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld 

line connections; socket weld, used to 

fit pipe into a machined recession; and 

blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes 

of the flanges within the scope range 

generally from one to six inches; 

however, all sizes of the abovedescribed merchandise are included in 

the scope. Specifically excluded from 

the scope of this order are cast stainless 

steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges 

generally are manufactured to 

specification ASTM A–351. The flanges 

subject to this order are currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). 

Although the HTS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise under review is dispositive 

of whether or not the merchandise is 

covered by the scope of the order. 

Intent To Rescind and Partial 

Rescission of the Administrative 

Review 

As previously stated, in their requests 

for review Kunj, Micro, Pradeep, and 

Rollwell requested a new shipper 

review, and failing that, an 

administrative review. Subsequent to 

initiating the new shipper reviews the 

Department conducted a data query of 

entry information from U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP). We 

determined, based on our review of 

those data, that Micro and Pradeep 2 had 

no entries during the POR, and therefore 

do not qualify for an administrative 

review for the period February 1, 2005, 

through January 31, 2006. See 

Memorandum to the File dated August 

23, 2006. We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on this 

determination and received no 

comments. We are therefore rescinding 

the administrative review with respect 

to Micro and Pradeep.3

With respect to Kunj, we determined 

that Kunj qualifies for a new shipper 

review for the period February 1, 2005, 

through January 31, 2006. See id. 

Therefore, since we are conducting a 

new shipper review of Kunj for the 

period covered by this administrative 

review, we are rescinding the 

administrative review for Kunj pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.214(j). 

With respect to Rollwell, we 

determined that Rollwell does not 

qualify for a new shipper review for the 

period February 1, 2005, through 

January 31, 2006, but does qualify for an 

administrative review for the same 

period. See id. 

With respect to Shree Ganesh, this 

company submitted a section C 

response in which it claimed it had 

shipments to the United States during 

the POR. However, our data query 

showed no entries from this company 

during the POR. See Memorandum to 

the File dated June 30, 2006, titled ‘‘U.S. 

Entry Documents—Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India.’’ We are therefore 

issuing this notice as an intent to 

rescind the administrative review of 

Shree Ganesh based on the fact that the 

company had no entries during the POR 

of subject merchandise. We invite 

comments from interested parties on 

this intent to rescind. 

Rollwell 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

In accordance with sections 776(a)(1) 

and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Tariff Act), the 

Department has determined that the use 

of AFA is appropriate for purposes of 

determining the preliminary dumping 

margin for the subject merchandise sold 

by Rollwell. Pursuant to sections 

776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act the 

Department shall (with certain 

exceptions not applicable here) use the 

facts otherwise available in reaching 

applicable determinations under this 

subtitle if an interested party (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the administrating 

authority; (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information or in the 

form and manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Tariff Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under this 

subtitle; or (D) provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i). 

See Tariff Act section 776(a)(2). 

Moreover, section 776(b) of the Tariff 

Act provides, in relevant part, that: 

If the administering authority finds that an 

interested party has failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply with 

a request for information from the 

administering authority or the Commission, 

the administering authority or the 

Commission (as the case may be), in reaching 

the applicable determination under this 

subtitle, may use an inference that is adverse 

to the interests of the party in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available. Id. 

As described below, we find that 

Rollwell has significantly impeded this 

proceeding by failing to provide usable 

data upon which we can calculate an 

antidumping margin. Moveover, we find 

that Rollwell has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. We therefore 

determine that the use of AFA is 

appropriate for these preliminary 

results. However, because of the 

unusual circumstances of this review 

with respect to Rollwell (notably the 

length of time it took to ascertain the 

appropriate U.S. sales to analyze), we 

have also determined to issue Rollwell 

another supplemental questionnaire to 

provide it with yet another opportunity 

to correct numerous deficiences in its 

responses. Based on its response to this 

supplemental questionnaire, we will 

consider calculating a margin for 

Rollwell for the final results of review. 

As previously stated, the Department 

sent standard section A, B, and C 

questionnaires to Rollwell on April 5, 

2006. Rollwell submitted its response to 

the section A questionnaire on May 8, 

2006. Rollwell submitted its responses 

to sections B and C on May 30, 2006. 

However, the Department found serious 

deficiencies in all three of these 

responses, and also found reason to 

question whether Rollwell had reported 

all of its U.S. sales, and whether any of 

those it did report were actual 

consumption entries during the POR. 

Therefore the Department sent a 

supplemental section A, B, and C 

questionnaire to Rollwell on November 

1, 2006. Rollwell submitted its response 

to this supplemental questionnaire on 

November 21, 2006. However, upon 

examining Rollwell’s response, the 

Department again found that there were 

grounds to question whether Rollwell 

had consumption entries during the 

POR that would qualify Rollwell for an 

administrative review. The Department 

accordingly made a telephonic inquiry 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10144 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

to Rollwell’s counsel to discuss the 

likelihood of any additional U.S. sales. 

In response, Rollwell submitted a 

revised U.S. sales listing on December 

14, 2006. The Department found there 

were reviewable U.S. sales in this listing 

which Rollwell had not reported earlier, 

but also found substantial discrepancies 

in the submission with respect to 

reported cost data. The Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire on 

February 2, 2007, including a request 

that Rollwell respond to section D of the 

April 5, 2006, questionnaire. Rollwell 

submitted its response on February 12, 

2007. 

Upon reviewing the various 

submissions Rollwell has made during 

the POR, the Department has 

determined that the deficiencies in 

Rollwell’s submitted data (described 

below) are so pervasive that the 

Department cannot rely upon Rollwell’s 

data to calculate a margin. Furthermore, 

by repeatedly providing deficient 

responses Rollwell has failed to act to 

the best of its ability in responding to 

the Department’s requests for 

information. 

Rollwell had two shipments of subject 

flanges that entered the United States 

during the POR. Rollwell sold both of 

these shipments prior to the POR, but 

the shipments entered U.S. Customs 

territory during the POR. However, 

Rollwell did not report these U.S. sales 

until it made its December 14, 2006, 

submission, after the Department had 

prompted it a second time to search 

among its records for any U.S. 

shipments it may have had that would 

qualify for review. Furthermore, 

Rollwell did not report the home market 

sales contemporaneous with the U.S. 

sales until it responded to the 

Department’s second supplemental 

questionnaire issued February 2, 2007. 

The Department had previously stated 

the need to report any contemporaneous 

home market sales in its original April 

5, 2006, questionnaire and again in its 

November 1, 2006, supplemental 

questionnaire. Furthermore, the 

Department found Rollwell’s allocation 

method for the costs it reported on its 

home market and U.S. sales listings to 

be inadequate because it was dependent 

upon estimated data rather than actual 

data. This inadequacy made it 

impossible for us to rely upon these 

costs in performing the twenty percent 

difference-in-merchandise test for 

purposes of determining the most 

suitable home market match for U.S. 

sales. Furthermore, when Rollwell 

submitted its section D response we 

found its reported raw material costs to 

be aberrational. Moreover, Rollwell did 

not submit a home market sales 

reconciliation, as requested in the April 

5, 2006, questionnaire and again in the 

February 2, 2007, supplemental 

questionnaire. Thus, it has withheld 

information requested by the 

Department. See section 776(a)(2)(A) of 

the Tariff Act. For further examples and 

more specific information about the 

deficiencies, see Corroboration 

Memorandum, February 28, 2007. 

In light of the foregoing deficiencies, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that necessary information is 

not available on the record to serve as 

the basis for the calculation of 

Rollwell’s margin. See section 776(a)(1) 

of the Tariff Act. We also determine that 

Rollwell withheld requested 

information and has significantly 

impeded this proceeding. See section 

776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Tariff Act. As 

a result, we are basing Rollwell’s margin 

on the facts otherwise available, in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(1) and 

(2)(A) and (C) of the Tariff Act. See, e.g., 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice 

From Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13, 

2006). See also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales of Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30, 2002); Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 

Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 

Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5567 

(Feb. 4, 2000); Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909 (Feb. 23, 

1998). 

If the Department finds that an 

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information,’’

the Department may use information 

that is adverse to the interests of the 

party as the facts otherwise available. 

See section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action (SAA) accompanying the 

Uruguay Round Agreement Act, H. Doc. 

No. 316, 103d Cong., 2nd Session, Vol. 

1 (1994) at 870. In determining whether 

a respondent has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability, the Department 

need not make a determination 

regarding the willfulness of a 

respondent’s conduct. See Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1379–1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997). 

In determining whether a party failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability, the 

Department considers whether a party 

could comply with the request for 

information, and whether a party paid 

insufficient attention to its statutory 

duties. See Pacific Giant Inc. v. United 

States, 223 F. Supp 2d 1336, 1342–43 

(CIT 2002). Furthermore, the 

Department also considers the accuracy 

and completeness of submitted 

information, and whether the 

respondent has hindered the calculation 

of accurate dumping margins. See 

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–53820 

(October 16, 1997). The Department 

determines that Rollwell could comply 

with its requests for information but 

failed to do so, thereby failing to act to 

the best of its ability. Here, the 

Department finds that Rollwell has 

failed to provide relevant U.S. and home 

market sales until after it was prompted 

twice to do so following issuance of the 

original questionnaire, and has hindered 

the calculation of accurate dumping 

margins by failing to provide usable cost 

data in its sales listings and section D 

response. 

Under the statutory scheme, adverse 

inferences may include reliance on: 

Information derived from (1) the 

petition; (2) a final determination in the 

investigation; (3) any previous review or 

determination; or (4) any other 

information placed on the record. See 

section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. The 

SAA authorizes the Department to 

consider the extent to which a party 

may benefit from its own lack of 

cooperation. Id. The Department’s 

practice when selecting an adverse rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information is to ensure that the margin 

is sufficiently adverse to induce the 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales of Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002). Because 

entries into the United States by 

Rollwell are currently subject to the 

‘‘All Others’’ cash deposit rate of 162.14 

percent, the Department determines that 

assigning the highest margin from the 

original petition and investigation in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10145 

this case, 210.00 percent, as AFA will 

prevent Rollwell from benefitting from 

its failure to cooperate with the 

Department’s requests for information. 

See Amended Final Determination. 

Furthermore, a lower rate would 

effectively reward Rollwell for not 

cooperating by not acting to the best of 

its ability. 

Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act 

provides that when the Department 

relies on the facts otherwise available 

and relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’

the Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. The SAA 

states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to 

determine that the information used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be used. 

To assess the reliability of the petition 

margin in accordance with section 

776(c) of the Tariff Act, to the extent 

practicable, we examined the key 

elements of the calculations of export 

price and normal value upon which the 

margins in the petition were based. (For 

discussion of ‘‘reliance on secondary 

information,’’ standard under section 

776(c) of the Tariff Act, please see 

Corroboration Memorandum.) The U.S. 

prices in the petition were based upon 

quotes to U.S. customers, most of which 

were obtained through market research. 

See Petition for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties, December 29, 

1993. The Department was able to 

corroborate the U.S. price in the petition 

which was used as the basis of the 

210.00 percent rate by comparing this 

price to publicly available information 

based on IM–145 import statistics from 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission’s Web site via Dataweb for 

HTS numbers 7307215000 and 

7307211000. The NVs in the petition 

were based on actual price quotations 

obtained through market research. At 

present, the Department is not aware of 

other independent sources of 

information at its disposal which would 

enable it to corroborate the margin 

calculations in the petition further. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal as to whether there are 

circumstances which would render a 

margin not relevant. The implementing 

regulation for section 776 of the Tariff 

Act, codified at 19 CFR 351.308(d), 

states, ‘‘{t}he fact that corroboration 

may not be practicable in a given 

circumstance will not prevent the 

Secretary from applying an adverse 

inference as appropriate and using the 

secondary information in question.’’

Additionally, the SAA at 870 states 

specifically that, where ‘‘corroboration 

may not be practicable in a given 

circumstance,’’ the Department may 

nevertheless apply an adverse inference. 

The SAA at 869 emphasizes that the 

Department need not prove that the 

facts available are the best alternative 

information. 

Where circumstances indicate that the 

selected margin is not appropriate as 

AFA the Department will disregard the 

margin and determine an appropriate 

margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996) (the Department 

disregarded the highest dumping margin 

as best information available because 

the margin was based on another 

company’s uncharacteristic business 

expense resulting in an unusually high 

margin). 

The rate to which Rollwell’s entries 

are currently subject is 162.14 percent. 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55796 (August 30, 2002). 

Accordingly, the Department will apply 

a 210 percent AFA rate, a rate which the 

Department finds is sufficiently adverse 

to encourage Rollwell to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information. Furthermore, the 

Department is not aware of any 

circumstances which would render this 

rate inappropriate. In fact, other Indian 

manufacturers currently have a 210 

percent margin under this order. See 

e.g., Certain Forged Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 29314, 

(May 22, 2006). 

Therefore, based on the Department’s 

efforts described above to corroborate 

information contained in the petition, 

and in accordance with section 776(c) of 

the Tariff Act which discusses facts 

available and corroboration, the 

Department considers the margins in the 

petition to be corroborated to the extent 

practicable for purposes of this 

preliminary determination. See Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, 

84 (January 4, 1999). 

Date of Sale 

In determining the appropriate date of 

sale, the Department normally uses the 

date of invoice as the date of sale. See 

19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube 

and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 

F. Supp. 2d 1087 (CIT 2001). Moreover, 

the preamble to the Department’s 

regulations expresses a strong 

preference for the Department to choose 

a single date of sale across the full POR. 

See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27349 

(May 19, 1997). For these preliminary 

results, the Department will use the 

invoice date as the appropriate date of 

sale for the POR for Echjay, because this 

date best represents the date upon 

which the material terms of sale are set. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States by 

Echjay were made at less than NV, we 

compared constructed export price 

(CEP) to the NV (as described in the 

‘‘Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice, below). In accordance with 

section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, the 

Department calculated monthly 

weighted-average prices for NV and 

compared these to the prices of 

individual EP or CEP transactions. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Tariff Act, the Department 

considered all products described by the 

Scope of the Order section, above, 

produced and sold by Echjay in the 

home market to be foreign like products 

for purposes of determining appropriate 

comparisons to U.S. sales. 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 and 

reporting instructions listed in the 

Department’s questionnaire. Where 

there were no sales of identical or 

similar merchandise in the home market 

suitable for comparing to U.S. sales, the 

Department compared these sales to 

constructed value (CV), pursuant to 

sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the 

Tariff Act. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Tariff Act, EP is defined 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10146 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

exporter of the 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 section 772(c) of the 

Tariff Act. In accordance with section 

772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is the price 

at which the subject merchandise is first 

sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 

States before or after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter of such 

merchandise or by a seller affiliated 

with the producer or exporter, to a 

purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter, as adjusted under 

subsections (c) and (d). 

Based on the record evidence, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that Echjay’s U.S. sales, all of which 

were through its U.S. affiliate Echjay 

U.S.A., Inc., to unaffiliated customers in 

the United States were made in the 

United States within the meaning of 

section 772(b) of the Tariff Act and thus 

are properly classified as CEP sales. 

The Department calculated CEP based 

on the prices charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. The Department based CEP on 

the packed CIF duty paid prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. The Department made 

deductions for movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Tariff Act, including foreign inland 

freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 

ocean freight, and marine insurance. 

The Department also deducted those 

selling expenses incurred in selling the 

subject merchandise in the United 

States, including direct selling expenses 

(e.g., bank commissions and charges, 

documentation fees) and imputed 

credit. In accordance with section 

772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act, the 

Department deducted an amount for 

profit allocated to the expenses 

deducted pursuant to sections 772(d)(1) 

and (2) of the Tariff Act. See Analysis 

Memorandum for more details. 

Duty Drawback 

Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act 

provides that EP or CEP shall be 

increased by among other things, ‘‘the 

amount of any import duties imposed 

by the country of exportation which 

have been rebated, or which have not 

been collected, by reason of the 

exportation of the subject merchandise 

to the United States.’’ The Department 

determines that an adjustment to U.S. 

price for claimed duty drawback is 

appropriate when a company can 

demonstrate that there is (i) a sufficient 

link between the import duty and the 

rebate, and (ii) sufficient imports of the 

imported material inputs to account for 

the duty drawback received for the 

export of the manufactured product (the 

so-called ‘‘two-prong test’’). See 

Rajinder Pipes, Ltd. v. United States, 70 

F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

1999). 

Echjay claimed it received duty 

drawback from the Indian government 

which it books in an ‘‘Export Incentives 

Ledger.’’ See Echjay’s Section C 

Response at Annexure I. The 

Department finds that Echjay has not 

provided substantial evidence on the 

record to meet the requirement of the 

first prong of the two-prong test, to wit, 

to establish the necessary link between 

the import duty and the reported rebate 

for duty drawback. Even if Echjay 

provided evidence demonstrating that it 

received duty drawback in the form of 

certificates issued by the Government of 

India and recorded them in a particular 

category of the ledger, Echjay has failed 

to establish the sufficient link between 

the import duty paid and the rebate 

given by the Government of India. 

Echjay’s response suggests that much of 

the duty drawback certificate program 

has no bearing on home market import 

duties of any kind. Therefore, the 

Department is denying a duty drawback 

credit for the preliminary results of this 

review. 

Normal Value 

In determining NV, the statute 

requires the Department to determine 

the price at which the foreign like 

product is first sold (or, in the absence 

of a sale, offered for sale) for 

consumption in the exporting country 

in the usual commercial quantities and 

in the ordinary course of trade and, to 

the extent practicable, at the same level 

of trade as the export price or 

constructed export price. In order to 

determine whether there is 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 

during the POR is equal to or greater 

than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise during the POR), the 

Department compared the volume of 

home market sales of the foreign like 

product to the volume of U.S. sales of 

the subject merchandise. The 

Department found no reason to 

determine that quantity was not the 

appropriate basis for these comparisons, 

so value was not used. See section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act; see also 19 

CFR 351.404(b)(2). Therefore, the 

Department based NV for Echjay on 

home market sales to unaffiliated 

purchasers made in the usual quantities 

and in the ordinary course of trade. 

The Department based its 

comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales 

to the volume of home market and third 

country sales on reported stainless steel 

flange weight, rather than on number of 

pieces. The record demonstrates that 

there can be large differences between 

the weight (and corresponding cost and 

price) of stainless steel flanges based on 

relative sizes, so comparisons of 

aggregate data would be distorted for 

these products if volume comparisons 

were based on the number of pieces. 

Price-to-Price Comparisons 

The statue requires the Department to 

determine whether subject merchandise 

is being, or is likely to be, sold at less 

than fair value by making a fair 

comparison between the EP or CEP and 

NV under section 773 of the Tariff Act. 

For Echjay, the Department compared 

its U.S. sales with contemporaneous 

sales of the foreign like product in India. 

As noted, the Department considered 

stainless steel flanges identical based on 

the following five criteria: Grade; type; 

size; pressure rating; and finish. The 

Department used a 20 percent 

difference-in-merchandise (difmer) cost 

deviation cap as the maximum 

difference in cost allowable for similar 

merchandise, which we calculated as 

the absolute value of the difference 

between the U.S. and comparison 

market variable costs of manufacturing 

divided by the total cost of 

manufacturing of the U.S. product. The 

Department made adjustments for 

differences in packing costs between the 

two markets and for movement 

expenses in accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. 

The Department adjusted for differences 

in the circumstances of sale (COS) 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 

the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 

Finally, for Echjay the Department made 

adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the home market or United 

States where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not in the 

other (the ‘‘commission offset’’). 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Tariff Act, the Department bases 

NV on CV if it is unable to find a 

contemporaneous comparison market 

match for the U.S. sale. Where the 

Department based NV on CV, CV is 

calculated based on the cost of materials 

and fabrication employed in producing 

the subject merchandise, SG&A, and 

profit. In accordance with section 

772(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 10147 

Department bases SG&A expenses and 

profit on the amounts incurred and 

realized by the respondent 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, the Department uses 

the weighted-average comparison 

market selling expenses. Where 

appropriate, the Department has made 

COS adjustments to CV in accordance 

with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to 

EP, the Department has made COS 

adjustments by deducting home market 

direct selling expenses and adding U.S. 

direct selling expenses. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the 

extent practicable, the Department 

determines NV based on sales in the 

home market at the same level of trade 

(LOT) as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT 

is that of the starting-price sales in the 

home 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 an affiliated 

importer after the deductions required 

under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP or CEP, the 

Department examines stages in the 

marketing process and selling functions 

along the chain of distribution between 

the producer and the unaffiliated 

customer, for example channels of 

distribution processing, packing and 

shipping. 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 comparisonmarket sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction, the Department makes a 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff 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 

the levels between NV and CEP affects 

price comparability, the Department 

adjusts NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Tariff Act (the CEP-offset provision). 

See Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732–33 (November 19, 

1997). 

In implementing these principles in 

this review, the Department obtained 

information from Echjay about the 

marketing stages involved in its U.S. 

and home market sales, including a 

description of the selling activities in 

the respective markets. In identifying 

levels of trade for CEP, the Department 

considered only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron 

Technology v. United States, 243 F.3d 

1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, 

if the reported levels of trade are the 

same in the home and U.S. markets, the 

functions and activities of the seller 

should be similar. Conversely, if a party 

reports differences in levels of trade, the 

functions and activities should be 

dissimilar. 

Echjay reported one channel of 

distribution and one LOT in the home 

market, contending that home market 

sales to distributors and wholesalers 

were made at the same level of trade 

and involved the same selling activities. 

See Echjay’s Section A Response at 13–

15. In fact, all merchandise for both 

Echjay was sold in the home market on 

ex works terms. See, e.g., Echjay’s 

Section B Response at 7. After 

examining the record evidence 

provided, the Department preliminarily 

determines that a single LOT exists for 

Echjay in the home market. 

The record evidence supports a 

finding that in both markets and in all 

channels of distribution, Echjay 

performs essentially the same level of 

selling activities such as order 

processing, shipping and invoicing of 

sales, and processing of payments. 

Thus, with respect to selling functions 

for sales, marketing support, freight, and 

delivery, we find them to be similar. 

Based on our analysis of the selling 

functions performed on CEP sales in the 

United States and of sales in the home 

market, the Department determines that 

the CEP and the starting price of home 

market sales represent the same stage in 

the marketing process and are thus at 

the same LOT. Accordingly, the 

Department preliminarily finds that no 

level of trade adjustment or CEP offset 

is appropriate for Echjay. 

Currency Conversions 

The Department made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars in 

accordance with section 773(a) of the 

Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, 

as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank 

of the United States. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review the 

Department preliminarily finds the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2005, through January 31, 2006: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Echjay Forgings, Pvt. Ltd ..... 0.06 

Rollwell Forge, Ltd ................ 210.00 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed 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 

the preliminary results. See 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 per 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs or written comments no later than 

30 days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results of review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 309(d), rebuttal 

briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

the case briefs and comments, may be 

filed no later than 5 days after the time 

limit for filing the case briefs. 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. 

Further, the Department requests parties 

submitting written comments to provide 

the Department with an additional copy 

of the public version of any such 

comments on diskette. The Department 

will issue final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised in any such written comments or 

at a hearing, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, the Department 

will determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Notice of Policy 

Concerning Assessment of Antidumping 

Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) 

(Assessment-Policy Notice). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by Echjay and Rollwell for 

which Echjay and Rollwell, 

respectively, did not know that the 

merchandise it sold to an intermediary 

(e.g., a reseller, trading company, or 

exporter) was destined for the United 

States. In such instances, we will 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10148 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Notices 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the 162.14 percent all-others 

rate established in the original less than 

fair value (LTFV) investigation, if there 

is no rate for the intermediary involved 

in the transaction. See the AssessmentPolicy Notice for a full discussion of 

this clarification. 

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 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed company 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of the administrative review 

(except that no deposit will be required 

if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less 

than 0.5 percent); (2) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, or the 

original LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be that established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (3) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this review, any previous 

reviews, or the LTFV investigation, the 

cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the 

LTFV investigation. See Amended Final 

Determination and Antidumping Duty 

Order; Certain Forged Stainless Steel 

Flanges from India, 59 FR 5994 

(February 9, 1994) (Amended Final 

Determination). 

Notification to Interested Parties 

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 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act 

and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4072 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–848 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Notice of Intent to Rescind 

New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting new 

shipper reviews of the antidumping 

duty order on freshwater crawfish tail 

meat from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’) in response to requests 

from Nanjing Merry Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Nanjing Merry’’), Leping Lotai Foods 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Leping Lotai’’), Weishan 

Hongrun Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Weishan Hongrun’’), and Shanghai 

Strong International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shanghai Strong’’). The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2005, 

through February 28, 2006. Because the 

sale(s) made by Weishan Hongrun were 

not bona fide, and neither Leping Lotai, 

Nanjing Merry, nor Shanghai Strong 

have demonstrated that they qualify for 

a separate rate, we have preliminarily 

determined that each of these new 

shipper reviews should be rescinded. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary notice of 

intent to rescind. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot 

Fullerton or P. Lee Smith, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1386 or (202) 482–

1655, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(c), the Department received 

timely requests for new shipper reviews 

from Shanghai Strong on March 24, 

2006, from Nanjing Merry and Leping 

Lotai on March 27, 2006, and from 

Weishan Hongrun on March 31, 2006. 

See Notice of Amendment to Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value and Antidumping Duty Order: 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 48218 

(September 15, 1997). 

The Department determined that the 

requests made by Nanjing Merry, Leping 

Lotai, and Weishan Hongrun met the 

requirements stated in section 351.214 

of the Department’s regulations. On May 

5, 2006, the Department published its 

initiation of these new shipper reviews 

for the period September 1, 2005, 

through February 28, 2006. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Reviews, 71 FR 26453 (May 5, 2006) 

(‘‘May 5, 2006, Initiation Notice’’). On 

May 1, 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.302(b), the Department extended 

the time limit to initiate the new 

shipper review of Shanghai Strong by 30 

days in order to provide the respondent 

with an opportunity to explain certain 

information in the entry documentation. 

On May 31, 2006, the Department 

determined that Shanghai Strong’s 

request also met the requirements stated 

in section 351.214 of the Department’s 

regulations, and published its initiation 

of this new shipper review. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

71 FR 30866 (May 31, 2006) (‘‘May 31, 

2006, Initiation Notice’’). 

The Department received section A 

questionnaire responses from Leping 

Lotai on June 3, 2006; Weishan Hongrun 

on June 5, 2006; Nanjing Merry on June 

6, 2006; and from Shanghai Strong on 

June 15, 2006. The Department issued a 

supplemental section A questionnaire to 

Leping Lotai on June 16, 2006, and 

received a response on June 28, 2006. 

The Department also received section C 

and D questionnaire responses from 

Weishan Hongrun on June 22, 2006; 

from Leping Lotai and Nanjing Merry on 

June 27, 2006; and from Shanghai 

Strong on June 30, 2006. 

On July 7, 2006, the Department 

issued a supplemental section A 

questionnaire to Shanghai Strong, and 

received a response from the company 

on July 20, 2006. On July 26, 2006, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

section A, C, and D questionnaire to 

Nanjing Merry, and received the 

company’s response on August 22, 

2006. On August 1, 2006, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

section C and D questionnaire to 

Shanghai Strong and Leping Lotai, to 

which both companies submitted a 

response on August 10, 2006. 

Additionally, on August 4, 2006, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

section A, C and D questionnaire to 

Weishan Hongrun, to which both 

companies submitted responses on 

September 1, 2006. 

On September 25, 2006, Nanjing 

Merry submitted a letter in which it 

stated it would no longer participate in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES