```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1435-1439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-815]

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan; Preliminary 
Results of Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by 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 welded stainless steel pipe from Taiwan (A-583-815). This 
review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to 
the United States during the period December 1, 1994 through November 
30, 1995.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of welded stainless steel 
pipe (WSSP) have been made below the 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 equal to the difference between United States price and NV. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. 
Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with the argument: 
(1) A statement of the issues; and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert James at (202) 482-5222 or John 
Kugelman at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: Unless otherwise indicated, all 
citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are 
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. 
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).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 30, 1992, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on WSSP from Taiwan (57 FR 62300). 
On December 4, 1995, the Department published the notice of 
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' for the period 
December 1, 1994 through November 30, 1995 (60 FR 62070). In accordance 
with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1) (1995), Ta Chen requested that we conduct a 
review of its sales. On February 1, 1996, we published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative 
review covering the period December 1, 1994 through November 30, 1995 
(61 FR 3670).
    Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the 
normal time frame, on September 12, 1996, we published in the Federal 
Register our notice of extension of time limits for this review (61 FR 
48126). As a result, we extended the deadline for these preliminary 
results to December 30, 1996. The deadline for the final results will 
continue to be 120 days after publication of these preliminary results.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise subject to this administrative review is certain 
welded austenitic stainless steel pipe (WSSP) that meets the standards 
and specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe designated 
ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of the order also 
includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made according to the 
standards of other nations which are comparable to ASTM A-312.
    WSSP is produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled products 
into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. WSSP is a 
commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids or 
gases. Major applications for WSSP include, but are not limited to, 
digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical stock 
lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food processing 
lines, automotive paint lines, and paper process machines.
    Imports of WSSP are currently classifiable under the following 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheadings: 
7306.40.5005, 7306.04.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and 
7306.40.5085. Although these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, 
the scope of this investigation is limited to welded austenitic 
stainless steel pipes. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this order is dispositive.
    The period for this review is December 1, 1994 through November 30, 
1995. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Ta Chen.

Use of Facts Available

    We preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is 
appropriate for a portion of Ta Chen's U.S. sales, in accordance with 
section 776(a) of the Tariff Act, because Ta Chen mischaracterized a 
portion of its U.S. sales as EP sales when, in fact, these are properly 
considered Constructed Export Price (CEP) sales. Ta Chen reported in 
its initial questionnaire response of April 30, 1996 that all of its 
U.S. sales were EP sales with each reported sale being made to an 
unaffiliated customer. However, in its November 12, 1996, supplemental 
questionnaire response, Ta Chen provided additional information with 
respect to one U.S. customer which clearly indicates that Ta Chen and 
this customer were affiliated within the meaning of section 771(33) of 
the Tariff Act.
    Section 771(33)(G) of the Tariff Act holds that two parties shall 
be considered ``affiliated'' if one party ``controls'' the other. One 
party controls another if the party ``is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.'' 
From the information provided by Ta Chen, we have preliminarily 
determined that Ta Chen was ``operationally in a position to exercise 
restraint or direction over'' the U.S. customer at issue. Ta Chen 
reported that it controlled this customer's disbursements and had 
physical custody of its signature stamp used to

[[Page 1436]]

execute checks and other instruments. The two parties also shared 
common sales department personnel. Further, Ta Chen had full and 
complete access, via computer modem, to this customer's accounting 
system, including its accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, 
and other company books. Ta Chen also indicated that its president 
participated directly in negotiating the terms of certain sales this 
customer made to subsequent purchasers of WSSP in the United States. 
Finally, this customer offered its accounts receivable and inventory as 
security for a line of credit obtained from a local bank by Ta Chen 
International (TCI), Ta Chen's wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary. Thus, this 
customer placed its continued ability to operate in the hands of a 
putatively unaffiliated party, TCI. Based upon the totality of evidence 
before the Department in this matter, we preliminarily determine that 
Ta Chen effectively exercised operational control over this putatively 
unaffiliated customer. See the public version of the Department's 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum to the File, on file in Room B-099 of 
the Main Commerce Building.
    Since Ta Chen reported its sales prices to this affiliated 
customer, and not the customer's sales prices to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States, Ta Chen failed to provide the Department 
with a complete and reliable listing of its U.S. sales. We 
preliminarily determine, therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of 
the Tariff Act, that Ta Chen withheld information requested by the 
Department by failing to report all of its sales to its first 
unaffiliated customers in the United States. In selecting the facts 
available, section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that where, as 
here, 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 an inference that is adverse to the interests of 
that party in selecting among the facts available. Section 776(b) also 
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information 
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous 
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. 
Because information from prior proceedings constitutes secondary 
information, section 776(c) of the Tariff Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) notes that ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value (see H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 
103d Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1996)). To corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used. However, unlike for other 
types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there 
are no independent sources for dumping margins. Thus, when in an 
administrative review the Department chooses as facts available a 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for the time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin 
irrelevant. In this case, there are no circumstances present to 
indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as facts 
available. In this case, we have used the highest rate from any prior 
segment of the proceeding, 31.9 percent, the highest rate from the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) determination, for Ta Chen's sales made 
through this particular U.S. customer.

Export Price

    Ta Chen reported in its initial and supplemental questionnaire 
responses that all of its U.S. sales were first sold to unrelated 
purchasers prior to importation into the United States. A substantial 
portion of these sales were made through Ta Chen's U.S. subsidiary, 
TCI. Ta Chen claims that for each of these sales, TCI acted merely as a 
``facilitator,'' handling sales- and Customs-related paper work. In 
each instance, according to Ta Chen, the price and quantity of the U.S. 
sale were determined prior to importation into the United States. The 
remainder of Ta Chen's U.S. sales were to an unrelated importer, who 
subsequently resold the merchandise after importation into the United 
States. Therefore, with the exception noted above under ``Use of Facts 
Available,'' in calculating U.S. price we used export price (EP) for 
all of Ta Chen's sales, as defined in section 772(a) of the Tariff Act. 
We calculated EP as the packed, delivered or ex-U.S. port price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we reduced this price by 
Taiwanese pre-sale inland freight, international ocean freight, marine 
insurance, Taiwanese brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and 
handling, U.S. duty, and U.S. inland freight. Where appropriate, we 
also reduced the EP by Taiwanese and U.S. bank charges.

Duty Absorption

    On July 16, 1996, petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether Ta Chen had absorbed antidumping duties during the 
period of review (POR) pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act. 
Section 751(a)(4) requires the Department, if requested, to determine, 
during an administrative review initiated two years or four years after 
publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed 
by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order, if the subject 
merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer who is 
affiliated with such foreign producer or exporter. Section 751(a)(4) 
was added to the Tariff Act by the URAA. The Department's interim 
regulations do not address this provision of the Tariff Act.
    For transition orders as defined in section 751(c)(6)(C) of the 
Tariff Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 1, 1995, section 
351.213(j)(2) of the Department's proposed antidumping regulations 
provides that the Department will make a duty absorption determination, 
if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998. 
See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 61 FR 7308, 7366 (February 27, 
1996). The preamble to the proposed antidumping regulations explains 
that reviews initiated in 1996 will be considered initiated in the 
second year and reviews initiated in 1998 will be considered initiated 
in the fourth year. Id. at 7317. Although these proposed antidumping 
regulations are not yet binding upon the Department, they do constitute 
a public statement of how the Department expects to proceed in applying 
section 751(a)(4) of the amended statute. This approach assures that 
interested parties will have the opportunity to request a duty 
absorption determination on entries for which the second and fourth 
years following an order have already passed, prior to the time for 
sunset review of the order under section 751(c). Because the order on 
WSSP from Taiwan has been in effect since 1992, this qualifies as a 
transition order. Therefore, based on the policy stated above, the 
Department will first consider a request for an absorption 
determination during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review 
initiated in 1996, we are making a duty-absorption determination as 
part of this segment of the proceeding.
    The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the

[[Page 1437]]

subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. In this case, TCI, Ta Chen's wholly owned subsidiary, is the 
importer of record for a majority of Ta Chen's U.S. sales, i.e., the 
exporter and the importer are the same entity. Therefore, the importer 
and the exporter are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of 751(a)(4). 
Furthermore, we have preliminarily determined that there is a dumping 
margin for Ta Chen on 13.47 percent (by quantity) of its U.S. sales 
during the POR. In addition, we cannot conclude from the record that 
the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States will pay the ultimately 
assessed duty. Under these circumstances, therefore, we preliminarily 
find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Ta Chen on 13.57 
percent of its U.S. sales.

Normal Value

A. Viability

    Based upon (i) our comparison of the aggregate quantity of home 
market and U.S. sales, (ii) the absence of any information that a 
particular marketing situation in Taiwan does not permit a proper 
comparison, and (iii) the fact that Ta Chen's quantity of sales in the 
home market exceeded five percent of its sales to the U.S. market, we 
determined that the quantity of foreign like product Ta Chen sold in 
Taiwan was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the sales of 
subject merchandise to the United States pursuant to section 773(a) of 
the Tariff Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 
of the Tariff Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like 
products were first sold for consumption in the exporting market, i.e., 
Taiwan.

B. Cost-of-Production Analysis

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production in the 
LTFV investigation (the most-recently completed segment of these 
proceedings), we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
sales of the foreign like product under consideration for determining 
NV in this review may have been at prices below the cost of production 
(COP), as provided in section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act (see 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Welded 
Stainless Steel Pipe from Taiwan, 57 FR 53705 (November 12, 1992)). 
Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 
initiated a COP investigation of sales by Ta Chen (see Memorandum to 
the File, dated February 13, 1996, available in Room B-099 of the Main 
Commerce Building).
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated COP based on the sum of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental 
to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for 
shipment. We relied on the home market sales and COP information Ta 
Chen provided in its questionnaire responses.
    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of 
subject WSSP were made at prices below COP within an extended period of 
time and whether such prices permit the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the 
reported home market prices less any applicable movement charges, and 
post-sale price adjustments (reported as discounts).
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 
twenty percent of Ta Chen's home market sales for a model were at 
prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of 
that model because we determined that the below cost sales were not 
made within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' 
Where twenty percent or more of Ta Chen's home market sales were at 
prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales were made 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Tariff Act. To 
determine whether such sales were at prices which would not permit the 
full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act, we compared 
home market prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR.
    The results of our cost test for Ta Chen indicated that for certain 
home market models less than twenty percent of the sales of the model 
were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of these 
models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. 
Our cost test for Ta Chen also indicated that within an extended period 
of time (one year, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Tariff Act) for certain other home market models more than twenty 
percent of the home market sales were at prices below COP which would 
not permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we 
therefore excluded the below-cost sales of these models from our 
analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for 
determining NV.

C. Product Comparisons

    We compared Ta Chen's U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the 
foreign like product in the home market. We considered pipe identical 
based on product nomenclature and considered specifications/alloy, 
nominal pipe size, and wall thickness in determining the most similar 
types of pipe. We used a twenty percent cap in reported differences in 
merchandise as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar 
merchandise. For purposes of these preliminary results, we have used 
the difference-in-merchandise information Ta Chen submitted with its 
supplemental questionnaire response of November 12, 1996.

D. Level of Trade

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act and in 
the SAA at 829 through 831, to the extent practicable, the Department 
will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. 
sales. When we are unable to find sales of the foreign like product in 
the comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale, we 
may compare U.S. sales to sales at a different level of trade in the 
comparison market.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act, if sales 
at allegedly different levels of trade are compared, we will adjust the 
NV to account for the difference in levels of trade if two conditions 
are met. First, there must be differences between the actual selling 
activities performed by the exporter at the level of trade of the U.S. 
sale and the level of trade of the comparison market sale used to 
determine NV. Second, the differences between levels of trade must 
affect price comparability as evidenced by a pattern of consistent 
price differences between sales at the different levels of trade in the 
market in which NV is determined.
    In order to determine that there is a difference in level of trade, 
the Department must find that two sales have been made at different 
stages of marketing, or the equivalent. Different stages of marketing 
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences 
in selling functions (even substantial differences) are not, in and of 
themselves, sufficient to establish a difference in the level of trade. 
Similarly, seller and customer descriptions (such as ``distributor'' 
and ``wholesaler''), while useful in identifying different levels of 
trade, are insufficient to establish that there is, in fact, a 
difference in the level of trade.

[[Page 1438]]

    To implement these principles in this review, we asked Ta Chen to 
provide detailed information regarding its selling activities/functions 
at each phase of marketing, and to establish any claimed level of trade 
based on these activities. In order to determine whether separate 
levels of trade actually existed within or between the U.S. and home 
markets, we reviewed the selling activities associated with each phase 
of marketing claimed by Ta Chen. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Tariff Act and the SAA at 827, in identifying levels of trade for 
EP and home market sales we considered the selling functions reflected 
in the starting price before any adjustments.
    We considered all types of selling activities performed by Ta Chen 
in our review of Ta Chen's questionnaire responses. We found that no 
single selling function in the pipe industry was sufficient to indicate 
that a separate level of trade existed (see Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments, 61 FR 7307, 7348 (February 
27, 1996)). In addition, in determining whether separate levels of 
trade existed in or between the U.S. and home markets, we analyzed the 
selling activities associated with the stages of marketing Ta Chen 
reported and expected the functions and activities of the seller to be 
similar if, as in the instant review, Ta Chen claimed the levels of 
trade to be the same.
    Ta Chen reported two stages of marketing in the home market (to 
unrelated distributors and end users) and a single phase of marketing 
in the United States (to unrelated distributors). With respect to the 
home market, Ta Chen claimed that its two stages of marketing 
constituted a single level of trade. Based upon our examination of 
information supplied by Ta Chen in its original and supplemental 
questionnaire responses, we agree that only one level of trade existed 
for Ta Chen in the home market.
    For its U.S. sales, Ta Chen reported a single stage of marketing, 
i.e., distributors. In determining whether, in fact, a single stage of 
marketing existed, we examined the selling functions as reflected in 
the starting price to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. While TCI 
processed the paperwork and provided certain selling functions for the 
majority of Ta Chen's U.S. sales, the remainder of these sales involved 
direct contact between the unaffiliated U.S. customer and Ta Chen 
without TCI's ``facilitation.'' We find preliminarily, however, that 
TCI provided very limited selling functions for those sales TCI 
facilitated and, therefore, found no significant differences in selling 
functions between sales through either channel. As a result, we 
preliminarily agree with Ta Chen that Ta Chen's EP sales constitute a 
single level of trade. We have requested additional clarification from 
Ta Chen on this point, and will incorporate this information in our 
final results of review.
    When we compared Ta Chen's sales at its EP level of trade to its 
home market level of trade, we found that the record indicated that Ta 
Chen provided little or no strategic or economic planning, market 
research, engineering services, advertising, after-sales services, or 
post-sale warehousing at either the EP or home market level of trade. 
Ta Chen reported that it provided the ``same'' degree of technical 
assistance at both the EP and home market level of trade. All packing 
expenses at either level were borne by Ta Chen; freight and delivery 
arrangements varied between the two markets in that U.S. movement 
expenses on certain U.S. sales were incurred by TCI. Based upon our 
analysis of the selling functions performed by Ta Chen in both markets, 
the similarities lead us to agree preliminarily that the level of trade 
of Ta Chen's EP and home market sales is the same.

E. Home Market Price

    While we found below-cost home market sales for Ta Chen in this 
review, Ta Chen's remaining home market sales at or above cost were 
sufficient to serve as the basis for NV.
    We based home market prices on the packed, ex-factory or delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. We made 
adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. In 
addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act, and for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 353.56. We made further 
adjustments by deducting home market direct selling expenses and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses. Finally, where the comparison EP sale 
involved a commission, we increased home market price by the amount of 
this commission and subtracted home market indirect selling expenses up 
to the amount of the U.S. commission, as provided at 19 CFR 353.56(b).

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether Ta Chen made sales of subject WSSP in the 
United States at prices that were less than fair value, we compared the 
EP to NV, as described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) 
of the Tariff Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV 
and compared these monthly averages to individual U.S. sales 
transactions.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average margin for Ta Chen for the period December 1, 1994 through 
November 30, 1995 is 2.65 percent.
    Parties to these proceedings may request disclosure within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice and may request a 
hearing within ten days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first business 
day thereafter. Case briefs and/or written comments from interested 
parties may be submitted no later than 30 days after the date of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be submitted no 
later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Parties who submit arguments in these proceedings are requested to 
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument. The Department will issue final results of 
these administrative reviews, including the results of our analysis of 
the issues in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 180 
days of issuance of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between U.S. price and NV may vary from the percentage 
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to Customs.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of WSSP from Taiwan 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 
Tariff Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rate for Ta Chen will be the rate established 
in the final results of this administrative review;
    (2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies other than Ta 
Chen, the cash deposit rate will

[[Page 1439]]

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 less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 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 be 19.84 percent. See Amended Final Determination and 
Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From 
Taiwan, 57 FR 62300 (December 30, 1992).
    All U.S. sales by the respondent Ta Chen will be subject to one 
deposit rate according to the proceeding. The cash deposit rate has 
been determined on the basis of the selling price to the first 
unrelated customer in the United States. For appraisement purposes, 
where information is available, we will use the entered value of the 
subject merchandise to determine the appraisement rate.
    This notice serves as preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility 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 the 
antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double 
antidumping duties. This administrative review and this notice are in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: December 30, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-633 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```