[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9009-9011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3962]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-122-503]


Certain Iron Construction Castings From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 10, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results 
of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on iron 
construction castings from Canada. The review covered four 
manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the period March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992. Based 
on our analysis of the comments received, the dumping margins for these 
four companies have not changed from the margins presented in the 
preliminary results. For the final results we continue to find that 14 
[[Page 9010]] additional companies are related to one of the 
respondents in this review and have, therefore, continued to collapse 
these companies and assign a single rate to the entire entity.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
6312/3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 10, 1994, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of an administrative review (59 FR 
40866) of the antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from 
Canada (51 FR 17220). The Department has now completed this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The Department completed its 
administrative review of the order on Canadian castings for the next 
annual period, March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993, on May 17, 
1994.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of certain iron 
construction castings, limited to manhole covers, rings and frames, 
catch basin grates and frames, cleanout covers and frames used for 
drainage or access purposes for public utility, water, and sanitary 
systems, classifiable as heavy castings under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7325.10.0010 and 7325.10.0050 and to valve, 
service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to encase water, 
gas, and other valves, or water or gas meters, classifiable as light 
casting under HTS item numbers 8306.29.0000 and 8310.00.0000. The HTS 
item numbers are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes 
only. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers sales of certain Canadian iron construction 
castings by Fonderie LaPerle (LaPerle), Penticton Foundry, Ltd. 
(Penticton), Titan Foundry, Ltd. (Titan), and Associated Foundry 
(Associated), during the period March 1, 1991 through February 29, 
1992.

Related Parties

    In addition, based on our analysis, we have found that 14 other 
companies, for which we did not initiate an administrative review, were 
related to LaPerle during the period of review. (For more information, 
see the analysis memorandum for the preliminary results.) We have 
determined, based on the best information available (BIA), that these 
related companies should be collapsed with LaPerle and receive a single 
assessment rate for this review period.
    On May 17, 1994, we issued final results of review for the period 
1992/1993. Since we assigned cash deposit rates to 12 of the 14 related 
companies in that review, these final results affect only the two 
remaining companies.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results as provided for in section 353.38 of the 
Department's regulations. We received comments from LaPerle and 
rebuttal comments from the Municipal Castings Fair Trade Council, 
including its individually named members (petitioner).
    Comment 1: LaPerle commented that the Department should not have 
resorted to BIA since LaPerle cooperated fully with the Department and 
responded to all requests for information. It argues that it responded 
fully to all seven requests for information from the Department.
    LaPerle states that, despite the Department's decision to collapse 
LaPerle and all parties to which it is either directly or indirectly 
related, LaPerle is an autonomous operation. LaPerle argues that the 
other companies also operate autonomously, especially, according to 
LaPerle, considering that two of these companies are located at too 
great a distance to be involved with LaPerle's operations. LaPerle 
asserts that the remaining companies either did not produce or did not 
sell such or similar merchandise or did not export to the United 
States.
    LaPerle further contends that this situation is like that in Gray 
Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan (58 FR 48826, 1993), where the 
Department stated: ``The use of BIA was not warranted in a situation 
where, as here, there are sufficient home market sales of comparable 
merchandise to unrelated customers to calculate an FMV for every month 
of the review period.''
    In its rebuttal comments the petitioner asserts that the 
fundamental error in LaPerle's arguments is its assertion that the 
submission of questionnaire responses for itself alone constitutes 
cooperation. By ignoring the Department's request for a consolidated 
response for itself and its related entities, petitioner agrees with 
the Department's determination that LaPerle has been uncooperative.
    Department's Position: In conducting this review, we received 
responses from only one company, which was LaPerle. Based on our 
analysis of this response, we determined in the preliminary results 
that LaPerle was not independent, but was, in fact, one of many 
components in a single business entity. In doing so, we determined that 
LaPerle and its related entities were sufficiently related to permit 
the possibility of price manipulation. As we stated in Cellular Mobile 
Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan (54 FR 48011, 1989), our 
determination to collapse related parties into a single respondent 
entity is not ``based solely on the extent of their financial 
relationship.''
    The other factors we relied upon in collapsing related companies 
are as follows: (1) The level of common ownership; (2) interlocking 
officers or directors (e.g., whether managerial employees or board 
members of one company sit on the board(s) of directors of the other 
related part(ies)); (3) the existence of production facilities for 
similar or identical products that would not require retooling either 
plant's facilities to implement a decision to restructure either 
company's manufacturing priorities; and (4) whether the operations of 
the companies are intertwined (e.g., pricing decisions, sharing of 
facilities or employees; transactions between the companies). See, 
e.g., Certain Granite Products from Spain, 53 FR 24335 (1988); Certain 
Granite Products from Italy, 53 FR 27187 (1988); Steel Wheels from 
Brazil, 54 FR 8780 (1989); Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Canada, 58 FR 37099 (1993). The Department's use of these 
factors was upheld by the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Nihon 
Cement Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States and The Ad Hoc Committee of 
Southern California Producers of Gray Portland Cement, et al., Slip Op. 
93-80 (CIT 1993). Based on an analysis of all four criteria, the 
Department has determined that the facts warrant collapsing the related 
entities. For further discussion of the Department's application of 
these factors in this review, see the analysis memorandum for the 
preliminary results.
    In conducting our analysis of the related-party issue in this 
review, we issued six supplemental questionnaires [[Page 9011]] and 
granted deadline extensions. In spite of this, LaPerle did not provide 
the Department with enough information to support its position that the 
related parties should not be collapsed. In addition, it did not 
consolidate all information for the respondent entity, including 
information for its related home market firms as outlined in our 
questionnaire. Therefore, we have determined that LaPerle significantly 
impeded the proceeding and, in accordance with section 776(c) of the 
Tariff Act, we have based our final results regarding LaPerle and its 
related entities on BIA.
    Comment 2: LaPerle states that if the Department continues to use 
BIA for the final results of review, it should use a second-tier BIA 
rate since LaPerle was a cooperative respondent. To support its 
argument LaPerle refers to Stainless Steel Wire Rods from Brazil (58 FR 
68862, 1993), where the Department applied a less adverse rate because 
the respondent was cooperative.
    The petitioner in its rebuttal comments states that the Department 
should reject this claim for the same reason as it did in the 1992-93 
review. The petitioner asserts that, as in that review, absent a 
consolidated response from LaPerle and its related entities, the 
Department would not be able to reach a determination of the amount of 
dumping engaged in by LaPerle and its related concerns, and thus that 
LaPerle did not fully cooperate with the Department.
    Department's Position: Despite LaPerle's responses, the respondent 
entity's response was inadequate. Therefore, we have concluded that the 
respondent entity ``refused to cooperate * * * or otherwise 
significantly impeded'' the review. (See Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. 
United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, the 
application of first-tier BIA is appropriate because LaPerle impeded 
the proceeding by failing to provide to the Department the information 
necessary to conduct the review and by failing to provide support for 
its position that LaPerle should not be collapsed with the 14 other 
companies during the period of review.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following 
weighted-average margins exist, and have been applied based on 
relationship and/or failure to respond, for the period March 1, 1991 
through February 29, 1992:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Margin
                 Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                  percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LaPerle........................................................     9.80
Penticton......................................................     9.80
Titan..........................................................     9.80
Associated.....................................................     9.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the 
Customs Service.
    Because the Department has already completed the review for the 
period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993, the cash deposit 
requirement for merchandise subject to the order will not be changed by 
these final results, except in the case of the two companies related to 
LaPerle that were not assigned cash deposit rates in the review 
covering the next annual period. For these two companies, the 
Department will instruct Customs to collect cash deposits at the rate 
applicable to LaPerle in this review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and 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: February 8, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-3962 Filed 2-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P