10538 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices

were evaluated in field trials conducted

under APHIS permits in 1992 and 1993,

and under APHIS notifications in 1993

and 1994. In the process of reviewing

the applications for those field trials,

APHIS determined that these plants

would not present a risk of plant pest

introduction or dissemination.

In the Federal Plant Pest Act, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 150aa et seq.), ‘‘plant

pest’’ is defined as ‘‘any living stage of:

Any insect, mites, nematodes, slugs,

snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate

animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic

plants or reproductive parts thereof,

viruses, or any organisms similar to or

allied with any of the foregoing, or any

infectious substances, which can

directly or indirectly injure or cause

disease or damage in any plants or parts

thereof, or any processed, manufactured

or other products of plants.’’ APHIS

views this definition very broadly. The

definition covers direct or indirect

injury, disease or damage not just to

agricultural crops, but also to plants in

general, for example, native species, as

well as to organisms that may be

beneficial to plants, for example,

honeybees, rhizobia, etc.

Several issues associated with GRC

Events T14 and T25 are also currently

subject to regulation by other agencies.

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is responsible for the

regulation of pesticides under the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7

U.S.C. 135 et seq.). FIFRA requires that

all pesticides, including herbicides, be

registered prior to distribution or sale,

unless exempt by regulation. Plants that

have been genetically modified for

tolerance or resistant to herbicides are

not regulated under FIFRA because the

plants themselves are not themselves

considered pesticides.

In cases in which the genetically

modified plants allow for a new use of

an herbicide or involve a different use

pattern for the herbicide, EPA must

approve the new or different use. In

conducting such an approval, EPA

considers the possibility of adverse

effects to human health and the

environment from the use of this

herbicide.

When the use of the herbicide on the

genetically modified plant would result

in an increase in the residues of the

herbicide in a food or feed crop for

which the herbicide is currently

registered, or in new residues in a crop

for which the herbicide is not currently

registered, establishment of a new

tolerance or a revision of the existing

tolerance would be required. Residue

tolerances for pesticides are established

by the EPA under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FEDCA) (21

U.S.C. 201 et seq.), and the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) enforces

tolerances set by the EPA under the

FFDCA.

The FDA publishes a statement of

policy on foods derived from new plant

varities in the Federal Register on May

29, 1992 (57 FR 22984–23005). The FDA

statement of policy includes a

discussion of the FDA’s authority for

ensuring food safety under the FFDCA,

and provides guidance to industry on

the scientific considerations associated

with the development of foods derived

from new plant varities, including those

developed through the techniques of

genetic engineering.

In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the

regulations, we are publishing this

notice to inform the public that APHIS

will accept written comments regarding

the Petition for Determination of

Nonregulated Status from any interested

person for a period of 60 days from the

date of this notice. The petition and any

comments received are available for

public review, and copies of the petition

may be ordered (see the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’

section of this notice).

After the comment period closes,

APHIS will review the data submitted

by the petitioner, all written comments

received during the comment period,

and any other relevant information.

Based on the available information,

APHIS will furnish a response to the

petitioner, either approving the petition

in whole or in part, or denying the

petition. APHIS will then publish a

notice in the Federal Register

announcing the regulatory status of

AgrEvo’s GRC Events T14 and T25 and

the availability of APHIS’ written

decision.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150aa–150jj, 151–167,

and 1622n; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51,

and 371.2(c).

Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of

February 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4741 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–427–813]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

From France

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Penelope Naas or Gary Bettger, Office of

Countervailing Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–3534 or 482–2239,

respectively.

Final Determination

We determine that certain carbon

steel butt-weld pipe fittings from France

are being sold in the United States at

less than fair value, as provided in

section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The estimated

margin is shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the publication of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register on October 4, 1994 (59

FR 50565), the following events have

occurred:

On October 5, 1994, pursuant to

§ 353.20(b)(1) of the Department’s

regulations, Interfit, S.A. (‘‘Interfit’’),

requested that the final determination in

this case be postponed. On November

14, 1994, the Department published in

the Federal Register a notice postponing

the publication of the final

determination in this case no later than

February 16, 1995 (59 FR 56461).

From October 10 through October 14,

1994, we verified the responses of

Interfit at its offices in Maubeuge,

France and Starval in Marly La Ville,

France, respectively. On October 17,

1994, we conducted a verification of

related party and certain other issues at

Vallourec Group Headquarters in

Boulogne-Bilancourt, France. During the

period of December 20 to 21, 1994, we

verified the responses of Interfit, Starval

and Vallourec Inc. in Houston, Texas.

From December 12 to December 16,

1994, we verified Interfit’s cost of

production data at its offices in

Maubeuge.

On January 23, 1995, and on January

30, 1995, petitioner and respondent

submitted case and rebuttal briefs to the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices 10539

Department. On February 1, 1995, the

Department held a public hearing in this

investigation.

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are certain carbon steel

butt-weld pipe fittings having an inside

diameter of less than fourteen inches

(355 millimeters), imported in either

finished or unfinished condition. Pipe

fittings are formed or forged steel

products used to join pipe sections in

piping systems where conditions

require permanent welded connections,

as distinguished from fittings based on

other methods of fastening (e.g.,

threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings).

Butt-weld fittings come in a variety of

shapes which include ‘‘elbows,’’ ‘‘tees,’’

‘‘caps,’’ and ‘‘reducers.’’ The edges of

finished pipe fittings are beveled, so

that when a fitting is placed against the

end of a pipe (the ends of which have

also been beveled), a shallow channel is

created to accommodate the ‘‘bead’’ of

the weld which joins the fitting to the

pipe. These pipe fittings are currently

classifiable under subheading

7307.93.3000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and Customs purposes, our written

description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

September 1, 1993, through February

28, 1994.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether Interfit’s sales

for export to the United States were

made at less than fair value, we

compared the United States price

(‘‘USP’’) to the foreign market value

(‘‘FMV’’), as specified in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Foreign Market

Value’’ sections of this notice.

Regarding level of trade, Interfit

reported that it sells only to distributors

in the United States and the home

market.

We made revisions to Interfit’s

reported data, where appropriate, based

on findings at verification.

United States Price

Because Interfit’s U.S. sales of certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings were

made to an unrelated distributor in the

United States prior to importation, and

the exporter’s sales price methodology

was not indicated by other

circumstances, we based USP on the

purchase price (‘‘PP’’) sales

methodology in accordance with section

772(b) of the Act.

We calculated Interfit’s USP sales

based on packed, c.i.f., duty paid,

landed prices to unrelated customers in

the United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage, marine

insurance, ocean freight, U.S. brokerage,

U.S. duties, and rebates. Reported U.S.

duties were adjusted based on

information collected at verification.

We made an adjustment to USP for

value-added tax (‘‘VAT’’) assessed on

comparison sales in France in

accordance with our practice, pursuant

to the Court of International Trade

(‘‘CIT’’) decision in Federal-Mogul, et al.

v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391. See,

Preliminary Antidumping Duty

Determination: Color Negative

Photographic Paper and Chemical

Components from Japan (59 FR 16177,

16179, April 6, 1994), for an explanation

of this tax methodology.

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating FMV, we compared the

volume of home market sales of subject

merchandise to the volume of third

country sales of subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of

the Act. On this basis, we determined

that the home market was viable.

In its May 13, 1994, response, Interfit

reported that all home market sales were

made to distributors, three of which

were related to Interfit. Based on

information verified in this

investigation, we do not consider

Interfit’s indirect minority interest in

Hardy-Tortauax (‘‘H-T’’) and Trouvay &

Cauvin (‘‘T&C’’) to be a sufficient basis

to determine that the parties are

‘‘related,’’ as defined in section 771(13)

of the Act and 19 CFR 353.45(b). See,

the Department’s concurrence

memorandum from the preliminary

determination (September 26, 1994, at

page 3). However, with respect to the

third related distributor, Starval, we

determined that its relationship to

Interfit (e.g., 100 percent common

ownership) satisfies the definition of a

related party.

Therefore, we compared Interfit’s

prices to Starval with Interfit’s prices to

unrelated parties using the arm’s length

test as set forth in Appendix II to Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Certain Cold-rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products from Argentina, 58 FR

37062 (July 9, 1994), and determined

that the sales made to Starval were not

at arm’s length. Accordingly, we

requested and received Starval’s sales to

unrelated customers in the home

market. While verifying Starval’s sales

response, we found that several sales

had been reported a number of times.

This rendered Starval’s home market

database unusable for purposes of the

final determination. Thus, we have

disregarded a small portion of Interfit’s

home market sales and used sales made

by Interfit directly to unrelated parties.

Cost of Production

Petitioner alleged that Interfit made

home market sales during the POI at

prices below the cost of production

(‘‘COP’’). Based on petitioner’s

allegation, we concluded that we had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales were made below COP. In the

course of this investigation, we gathered

and verified data on production costs.

For purposes of the preliminary

determination, because Interfit’s cost

data was incomplete and submitted too

late for consideration, as best

information available (‘‘BIA’’), we made

an adverse assumption that all home

market sales were below the COP and

based foreign market value on

constructed value (‘‘CV’’). We then

calculated the CV using Vallourec’s

transfer prices. We stated that we would

verify whether those prices were at

arm’s length.

For the final determination, however,

we have reviewed and analyzed

respondents COP data. In accordance

with our standard practice, we asked

Interfit to provide cost data for inputs

produced by related parties. Interfit

failed to provide data on the cost of

pipe, a major input, produced by its

related supplier, Vallourec. Therefore,

we have valued the input on the basis

of BIA and used the resulting COP to

test home market sale prices. As BIA we

adjusted the transfer prices for the input

upward by the average difference

between petitioner’s acquisition cost of

pipe, as reported in the petition, and the

transfer price Interfit pays to its

supplier.

In order to determine whether home

market prices were below the COP

within the meaning of section 773(b) of

the Act, we performed a productspecific cost test, in which we examined

whether each product sold in the home

market during the POI was priced below

the COP of that product. We calculated

COP based on the sum of Interfit’s cost

of materials, fabrication, general

expenses, and packing, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.51(c). For each

product, we compared this sum to the

home market unit price, net of

movement expenses, rebates and selling

expenses. We made changes, where

appropriate, to submitted COP data, as
10540 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices

discussed above and in the Interested

Party Comments section of this notice,

below.

In accordance with section 773(b) of

the Act, we also examined whether the

home market sales of each product were

made at prices below their COP in

substantial quantities over an extended

period of time, and whether such sales

were made at prices that would permit

recovery of all costs within a reasonable

period of time in the normal course of

trade.

For each product where less than ten

percent, by quantity, of the home market

sales during the POI were made at

prices below the COP, we included all

sales of that model for the computation

of FMV. For each product where ten

percent or more, but less than 90

percent, of the home market sales

during the POI were priced below the

COP, we disregarded from the

calculation of FMV those home market

sales which were priced below the COP,

provided that the below-cost sales of

that product were made over an

extended period of time. Where we

found that more than 90 percent of

respondent’s sales were at prices below

the COP, and such sales were over an

extended period of time, we disregarded

all sales of that product.

In order to determine whether belowcost sales had been made over an

extended period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we

compared the number of months in

which below-cost sales occurred for

each product to the number of months

in the POI in which that product was

sold. If a product was sold in three or

more months of the POI, we did not

exclude below-cost sales unless there

were below-cost sales in at least three

months during the POI. When we found

that sales of a product only occurred in

one or two months, the number of

months in which the sales occurred

constituted the extended period of time;

i.e., where sales of a product were made

in only two months, the extended

period of time was two months, where

sales of a product were made in only

one month, the extended period of time

was one month. (See Preliminary

Results and Partial Termination of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews: Tapered Roller Bearings, Four

Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and

Components Thereof, From Japan (58

FR 69336, 69338, December 10, 1993).

Interfit provided no indication that its

below cost sales were at prices that

would permit recovery of all costs

within a reasonable period of time and

in the normal course of trade. (See,

section 773(b)(2); 19 U.S.C. 1677b(b)(2)).

Constructed Value

Where all home market sales of a

product were disregarded, we based

FMV on CV. We calculated CV based on

the sum of the adjusted cost of

materials, fabrication, general expenses,

U.S. packing costs and profit. We

adjusted the cost of materials as

discussed in the Interested Party

Comments section of this notice, below.

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B)

(i) and (ii) of the Act, we (1) included

the greater of Interfit’s reported general

expenses or the statutory minimum of

ten percent of the cost of manufacture

(‘‘COM’’), as appropriate, and (2) for

profit, we used the statutory minimum

of eight percent of the sum of COM and

general expenses.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

For price-to-price comparisons, we

calculated FMV based on ex-factory or

delivered prices, inclusive of packing to

home market customers. We deducted

rebates, where appropriate. We also

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs in

accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the

Act.

In light of the Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit’s decision in Ad Hoc

Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers

of Gray Portland Cement V. United

States, 13 F. 3d 398 (Fed. Cir., January

5, 1994), the Department can no longer

deduct home market movement charges

from FMV pursuant to the Department’s

inherent power to fill in gaps in the

antidumping statute. Instead, we adjust

for direct movement expenses under the

circumstance-of-sale provision of 19

CFR 353.56(a). Accordingly, in the

present case, we deducted post-sale

home market movement charges from

the FMV under the circumstance-of-sale

provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a). This

adjustment included home market

inland freight and insurance.

For both price-to-price comparisons

and comparisons to CV, we made

circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where

appropriate, for differences in credit

expenses, pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2). In calculating U.S. credit

expense, we used the respondent’s cost

of borrowing in U.S. dollars during the

POI. In instances where Interfit had not

reported a shipment and/or payment

date, we recalculated Interfit’s reported

credit expense.

We have not made a deduction for

direct selling expenses reported by

respondent because we determined that

these expenses (product liability and

inventory carrying costs) are, in fact,

indirect selling expenses. However, we

have deducted indirect selling expenses,

capped by the commissions paid to

Vallourec Inc., a related party in the

U.S. market. For the preliminary

determination, we did not recognize

these commissions because we did not

have an appropriate benchmark against

which to test whether the commission

arrangement was at arm’s length.

However, we verified that Interfit pays

the same commissions to both related

and unrelated parties, with the

exception of a single unrelated party

that receives a higher rate. In LMI–La

Metalli Industriale, S.p.A. v. United

States, 912 F.2d 455, 459 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (LMI), the CAFC indicated that

related party commissions can and

should be adjusted for if the

commissions are at arm’s length and are

directly related to the sales under

review. Because the vast majority of

commissions to related and unrelated

parties are at a single rate, we find these

conditions are met in this case.

Therefore, we deducted indirect

expenses incurred for home market

sales up to the amount of the U.S.

commission. We then added the U.S.

commission to the FMV or CV, as

appropriate.

We adjusted for VAT in the home

market in accordance with our practice.

(See the United States Price section of

this notice, above.)

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions based

on the official exchange rates in effect

on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified

by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York. See 19 CFR 353.60.

Final Negative Determination of Critical

Circumstances

Petitioner alleged that critical

circumstances exist with respect to

imports of pipe fittings from France. In

our preliminary determination,

pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act

and 19 CFR 353.16, we analyzed the

allegation using the Department’s

standard methodology. Because no

additional information has been

submitted since the preliminary

determination, the Department

performed the same analysis as

explained in its preliminary finding.

Based on this analysis, the Department

determines, in accordance with section

735(a)(3) of the Act, that critical

circumstances do not exist with respect

to imports of certain carbon steel buttweld pipe fittings from France.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent using standard

verification procedures, including the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices 10541

examination of relevant sales, cost and

financial records, and selection of

original source documentation. The

public versions of the January 10, 1995,

verification reports are available in the

Central Unit located in room B–99 of the

Department’s main building, the Herbert

C. Hoover building.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1

Petitioner contends that Interfit

willfully refused, on four separate

occasions, to provide from its related

party, Vallourec Industries

(‘‘Vallourec’’), the actual cost of

producing carbon steel pipe, a major

input in the production of the subject

merchandise. Petitioner argues that by

repeatedly refusing to respond to the

Department’s requests for this

information, Interfit has not allowed the

Department to properly conduct this

investigation. Therefore, the Department

should apply adverse best information

available (‘‘BIA’’) in the final

determination. Petitioner notes that the

BIA approach employed at the

preliminary determination (i.e., the

assumption that all home market sales

are below COP) rewards Interfit for its

failure to cooperate. Accordingly, as

BIA, the Department should use the

margin reported for France in the

petition or, in the alternative, the

highest non-aberrational margin

calculated for Interfit in the preliminary

determination.

Interfit argues that it informed the

Department that it was willing to accept

the consequences of not supplying the

cost information, as this task would

have required Interfit to provide cost

information from four separate related

manufacturing units. Thus, Interfit is

prepared to accept a BIA finding that all

home market sales were below COP.

DOC Position

In light of Interfit’s cooperation in this

investigation, we disagree with

petitioner’s argument that the

Department should use total BIA in the

form of the margin reported for France

in the petition, or the highest nonaberrant margin calculated for Interfit in

the preliminary determination. Our use

of partial BIA is adequate because it

allows us to draw an adverse

assumption only with respect to the

information that Interfit failed to

provide. Because we were able to

perform a BIA cost test, we have

adequately ensured that Interfit does not

benefit from its failure to provide

information. Therefore, total BIA is

unnecessary.

Comment 2

Regarding the constructed value,

petitioner contends that the prices from

Vallourec to Interfit for carbon steel

pipe do not satisfy the statutory

requirements outlined in section

773(e)(2). According to petitioner,

section 773(e)(2) requires Interfit to

demonstrate that: (1) It has sales to

unrelated customers in the market

under consideration (i.e., France); (2)

the prices to those unrelated customers

are for pipe that was ‘‘identical or

demonstrably comparable to the pipe

used by Interfit;’’ and (3) the prices that

Interfit pays Vallourec are at arm’s

length. By its own admission, Interfit

cannot satisfy the first two elements of

the statute, because it concedes that

‘‘Vallourec sells no similar pipe to

unrelated customers in France.’’ With

respect to the third element, according

to petitioner, the Department’s

verification of the prices charged by

Vallourec to Interfit and to other

unrelated customers demonstrate that

the prices to Interfit are preferential.

Thus, petitioner argues that the

Department should disregard the

transfer prices and use the actual cost of

producing the input supplied by

Vallourec (carbon steel pipe). However,

because Interfit repeatedly refused to

provide Vallourec’s actual cost of

producing carbon steel pipe, the

Department is prevented from

determining CV and conducting a

complete investigation. Therefore, the

Department should apply best

information available (‘‘BIA’’) in the

final determination. In particular, the

Department should use the margin

reported for France in the petition or, in

the alternative, the highest nonaberrational margin calculated for

Interfit in the preliminary

determination.

Lastly, Petitioner argues that even if

the Department determines that transfer

prices between Vallourec and Interfit

are at arm’s length, the Department has

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that the transfer price of the

carbon steel pipe is less than the cost of

producing the pipe. Petitioner contends

that several factors in this investigation

provide the Department with

‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that Interfit purchased the pipe

from Vallourec at less than the COP.

Most notably, petitioner claims Interfit

did not provide evidence that

Vallourec’s price for the pipe was above

the cost of producing such pipe, even

though the information was requested

by the Department numerous times.

Petitioner thus argues that, because

the Department has ‘‘reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect’’ that pipe is being

sold at less than COP, even if the

transfer prices are accepted under

section 773(e)(2), those prices cannot be

used in determining CV. Rather, the

Department should apply adverse BIA

in the final determination, as detailed

above.

Interfit claims that the prices it pays

to Vallourec reflect the market value

(i.e., they are arm’s length prices) and

therefore, in accordance with section

773(e)(2), should be used for purposes

of calculating constructed value. To

substantiate its claim that the transfer

prices between Vallourec and Interfit

are arm’s length, Interfit has provided

the Department with prices of similar

pipe sold to unrelated customers in the

European Union (‘‘E.U.’’). Interfit argues

that, because ‘‘the E.U. is a fully

integrated market, with no barriers to

trade between its members,’’ these sales

are, in fact, in the same market (i.e., the

market under consideration). Interfit

also contends that the term

‘‘merchandise under consideration’’

includes both similar and identical

merchandise, not only identical

merchandise. With respect to the arm’s

length nature of these sales, Interfit

argues that information submitted in

this investigation demonstrates that the

prices Vallourec charges Interfit are

comparable to the prices charged to

unrelated customers for almost identical

pipe. Moreover, the pipe sold to

Vallourec’s unrelated customers

includes additional processing costs

which are not included in the pipe sold

to Interfit. These additional costs would

more than account for the difference in

price. Thus, pursuant to section

773(e)(2), Interfit claims that the

Department should use the transfer

prices in calculating CV.

With respect to section 773(e)(3),

Interfit claims that this section contains

a presumption that transfer prices are

valid for purposes of calculating CV

unless the Department has ‘‘reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect’’ that they

are below COP. To support its claim,

Interfit cites Al Tech Specialty Steel

Corporation v. United States, 575

F.Supp. 1277, 1282 (C.I.T. 1983); FMC

Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424

(CAFC 1993); and Antifriction Bearings

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof From the Federal

Republic of Germany, 54 FR 18992,

19020, Comment 4 (1989). Therefore,

where constructed value is concerned,

petitioner, not respondent, must first

provide evidence that the transfer prices

are below COP; a simple allegation by

petitioner is not sufficient. Interfit also

argues that its failure to provide

evidence that the transfer prices were
10542 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Notices

above COP does not imply that they

were below cost.

Interfit claims that the concurrence

memorandum from the preliminary

determination (September 26, 1994, at

page 3) and a November 15, 1994 letter

from the Department to the counsel for

Interfit, led the company to believe that

the transfer prices would be used so

long as they were determined to be at

arm’s length. Interfit assumed that if the

Department had at that time ‘‘reasonable

grounds’’ to believe that the pipe was

sold to Interfit at less than the COP, the

Department would have stated that cost

was an issue.

DOC Position

The fact that Interfit failed to provide

evidence that Vallourec’s price for the

input pipe was above the cost of

producing the pipe, despite numerous

requests from the Department for this

information, provides the Department

with ‘‘reasonable grounds to believe or

suspect’’ that the transfer prices paid by

Interfit were less than Vallourec’s cost

of production. Therefore, in computing

the CV, we have valued the pipe on the

basis of the BIA used to calculate COP

for the home market sales below cost

test. Because the transfer prices have

been disregarded in accordance with

section 773(e)(3) of the Act, we do not

need to address the issue of whether the

transfer prices satisfy the criteria under

section 773(e)(2). The Department’s

preliminary determination expressly

noted that whether the transfer prices

were at arm’s length would be examined

at verification. In addition, the

Department continued to pursue data

that would confirm that the transfer

prices are above COP. See,

Supplemental/Deficiency Section D

Questionnaire (November 15, 1994),

Section D Verification Agenda

(December 5, 1994), Fax to Counsel for

Interfit (December 8, 1994), and Section

D Verification Report (January 12, 1995).

Therefore, contrary to Interfit’s claims,

the question of cost remained an issue.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 735(c)(4)

of the Act, we are directing the U.S.

Customs Service to continue to suspend

liquidation of all entries of butt-weld

pipe fittings from France, as defined in

the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section of

this notice, that are produced and sold

by Interfit and that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after October 4,

1994.

The Customs Service shall require a

cash deposit or the posting of a bond

equal to the estimated weighted-average

amount by which the foreign market

value of the subject merchandise

exceeds the United States price as

shown below. The suspension of

liquidation will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Interfit, S.A. ............................... 32.58

All Others .................................. 32.58

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination.

Notice to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

return or destruction of proprietary

information disclosed under APO in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.35(d).

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1671(d)).

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–4724 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–508–807]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings

From Israel

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Yeske or Gary Bettger, Office of

Countervailing Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–0189 and 482–

2239, respectively.

Final Determination

We determine that certain carbon

steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Israel

are being sold in the United States at

less than fair value, as provided in

section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The estimated

margin is shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the publication of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register on October 4, 1994 (59

FR 50568), the following events have

occurred:

On October 5, 1994, pursuant to

section 353.20(b)(1) of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 353.20(b)(1)(1994),

Pipe Fittings Carmiel, Inc. (‘‘Carmiel’’)

requested that the final determination in

this case be postponed. On November

14, 1994, the Department published in

the Federal Register a notice postponing

the publication of the final

determination in this case until not later

than February 16, 1995 (59 FR 56461).

On October 20, 1994, Carmiel filed a

second supplemental/deficiency

response, which included a revised

home market sales listing. On November

27, November 28, and December 4,

1994, we verified Carmiel’s sales

information at its offices in Tel Aviv,

Israel. On January 23, 1995, and on

January 30, 1995, petitioner and

respondent submitted case and rebuttal

briefs to the Department.

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by this

investigation are certain carbon steel

butt-weld pipe fittings having an inside

diameter of less than fourteen inches

(355 millimeters), imported in either

finished or unfinished condition. Pipe

fittings are formed or forged steel

products used to join pipe sections in

piping systems where conditions

require permanent welded connections,

as distinguished from fittings based on

other methods of fastening (e.g.,

threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings).

Butt-weld fittings come in a variety of

shapes which include ‘‘elbows,’’ ‘‘tees,’’

‘‘caps,’’ and ‘‘reducers.’’ The edges of

finished pipe fittings are beveled, so

that when a fitting is placed against the

end of a pipe (the ends of which have

also been beveled), a shallow channel is

created to accommodate the ‘‘bead’’ of

the weld which joins the fitting to the

pipe. These pipe fittings are currently

classifiable under subheading

7307.93.3000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written

description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

September 1, 1993, through February

28, 1994.