[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9735-9737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-533-809]


Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty new shipper 
reviews.

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

[[Page 9736]]

SUMMARY: On November 25, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of its new shipper 
reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel 
flanges (SSF) from India (61 FR 59861). These reviews cover exports of 
this merchandise to the United States by two manufacturer/exporters, 
Isibars Ltd. (Isibars) and Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Ltd. 
(Patheja), during the period September 1, 1995 through February 29, 
1996.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. We received comments from respondent Patheja 
concerning alleged clerical errors. The review indicates the existence 
of a dumping margin for Patheja for this period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-2704 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    The antidumping duty order on SSF from India was published February 
9, 1994 (59 FR 5994). On November 25, 1996, the Department published in 
the Federal Register the preliminary results of these new shipper 
reviews of the antidumping duty order on SSF from India (61 FR 59861). 
The Department has now completed these new shipper reviews in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    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 above-described 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 of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes. The written description of the scope of this order remains 
dispositive.
    The reviews cover two Indian manufacturer/exporters, Isibars and 
Patheja, and the period September 1, 1995 through February 29, 1996.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received comments from Patheja on December 10, 
1996, concerning alleged clerical errors.
    Comment 1: Patheja argues that it provided audited figures on 
August 22, 1996, to update provisional data submitted earlier, but the 
Department relied instead on the earlier, provisional data for the 
preliminary results. Patheja argues that the Department should revise 
its analysis using the audited figures pertaining to cost of 
manufacturing, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses 
and profitability.
    Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis 
accordingly.
    Comment 2: Patheja argues that the Department inadvertently added 
vendor charges, a component of material costs, twice, resulting in 
double counting of those charges.
    Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis 
accordingly.
    Comment 3: Patheja argues that the Department failed to deduct the 
value of scrap metal from the cost of manufacturing.
    Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis 
accordingly.
    Comment 4: Patheja argues that the Department used as an ending 
date for the credit expense period for U.S. sales the date of October 
11, 1996, whereas the correct date of payment is October 30, 1996.
    Department's Position: We agree and have revised our analysis 
accordingly.

Final Results of Reviews

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we have 
determined that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist 
for Isibars and Patheja:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Period       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isibars...................................            9/1/95-           
                                                      2/29/96       0.00
Patheja...................................            9/1/95-           
                                                      2/29/96       1.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual differences between the U.S. price and normal value may 
vary from the above percentages. The Department shall instruct the 
Customs Service to liquidate all appropriate entries, and to assess no 
antidumping duties on Isibars' entries.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
    (1) The rate for the reviewed firms will be as listed above;
    (2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period;
    (3) If the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 
review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but 
the

[[Page 9737]]

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that rate established 
for the manufacturer of the merchandise in earlier reviews or the 
original investigation, whichever is the most recent; and
    (4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during the 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.34(d). Timely written 
notification of the return/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 
violation which is subject to sanction.
    This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)) and 19 CFR 
Sec. 353.22(h).

    Dated: February 24, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-5229 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P