32532 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 

this announcement does not oblige 

International Trade Administration to 

award any specific project or to obligate 

any available funds. 

The Department Of Commerce PreAward Notification Requirements For 

Grants And Cooperative Agreements: 

The Department of Commerce PreAward Notification Requirements for 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

contained in the Federal Register notice 

of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are 

applicable to this solicitation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

document contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The 

use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, 

and SF-LLL and CD-346 has been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the respective 

control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 

0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to, nor shall 

a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements 

of the PRA unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

Executive Order 12866: This notice 

has been determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): 

It has been determined that this notice 

does not contain policies with 

Federalism implications as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132. 

Administrative Procedure Act/ 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice 

and an opportunity for public comment 

are not required by the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other law for rules 

concerning public property, loans, 

grants, benefits, and contracts (5 USC 

553(a)(2)). Because notice and 

opportunity for comment are not 

required pursuant to 5 USC 553 or any 

other law, the analytical requirements 

for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 USC 

601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, 

a regulatory flexibility analysis has not 

been prepared. 

Dated: July 2, 2009. 

Janet E. Heinzen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles 

and Apparel. 

[FR Doc. E9–16060 Filed 7–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–816] 

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 

Fittings From Taiwan: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Notice of Intent 

To Rescind in Part, and Notice of Intent 

Not To Revoke Order in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

respondent Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., 

Ltd. (Ta Chen or respondent) and from 

Flowline Division of Markovitz 

Enterprises, Inc., Core Pipe (formerly 

known as Gerlin, Inc.), Shaw Alloy 

Piping Products, Inc., and Taylor Forge 

Stainless, Inc. (collectively, petitioners), 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 

(SSBWPFs) from Taiwan. Petitioners 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of Ta Chen, 

Liang Feng Stainless Steel Fitting Co., 

Ltd. and Liang Feng Enterprise (Liang 

Feng), Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. 

(Tru-Flow), Censor International 

Corporation (Censor), and PFP Taiwan 

Co., Ltd. (PFP). 

With regard to Ta Chen, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that SSBWPFs from Taiwan have been 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV), as provided in section 

733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The Department also 

finds that revocation of the order with 

respect to Ta Chen is not warranted 

under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). 

Based on Tru-Flow’s, Liang Feng’s, 

Censor’s, and PFP’s certified statements, 

and information from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) indicating that 

these companies had no shipments to 

the United States of the subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (POR), we hereby give notice 

that we intend to rescind the review 

regarding these companies. For a full 

discussion of the intent to rescind with 

respect to Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, 

and PFP, please refer to the ‘‘Notice of 

Intent to Rescind in Part’’ section of this 

notice. 

If these preliminary results of review 

of Ta Chen’s sales are adopted in the 

final results, we will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on 

appropriate entries based on the 

difference between the constructed 

export price (CEP) and the normal value 

(NV). Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Drury or Angelica Mendoza, 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) 482–0195 or (202) 482– 

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Period of Review 

The POR for this administrative 

review is June 1, 2007, through May 31, 

2008. 

Background 

On June 16, 1993, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SSBWPFs 

from Taiwan. See Amended Final 

Determination and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld 

Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, 58 FR 33250 

(June 16, 1993) (LTFV Order). On June 

9, 2008, the Department published a 

notice of opportunity to request 

administrative review for the period 

June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 

(June 9, 2008). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1) and (2), on June 27, 2008, 

petitioners requested an antidumping 

duty administrative review for Ta Chen, 

Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP. 

On June 30, 2008, Ta Chen requested an 

administrative review in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2). Ta 

Chen also requested, under 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2) and (e), that the 

antidumping duty order on SSBWPFs, 

as it relates to Ta Chen, be revoked 

based on the absence of dumping, and 

included with its request certain 

company certifications regarding 

revocation. 

On July 30, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of this 

administrative review. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Request for 

Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 

(July 30, 2008). 

On August 25, 2008, the Department 

issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Ta Chen. On September 

3, 2008, the Department issued its 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, Censor, and PFP. 

On September 29, 2008, the Department 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32533 

received a letter from Tru-Flow, Liang 

Feng, Censor, and PFP stating that each 

company had no sales or shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. However, at the 

time that the letter was filed, the 

attached certifications of no shipments 

were for all firms except Liang Feng 

Enterprise. In addition, the certification 

from Censor was incomplete. Also, it 

was unclear from the certifications as to 

whether or not Liang Feng Stainless 

Steel Fitting Co., Ltd., and Liang Feng 

Enterprise were different names for the 

same company or were different 

companies. On September 30, 2008, Ta 

Chen submitted its response to section 

A of the Department’s questionnaire. On 

October 1, 2008, Censor and Liang Feng 

resubmitted certifications that neither 

company had shipments of certain 

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 

from Taiwan during the POR. 

On October 16, 2008, Ta Chen 

submitted its responses to sections B, C, 

and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. On November 5, 2008, Ta 

Chen submitted unsolicited revisions to 

the databases for both its home market 

and United States sales, as well as 

revisions to the cost database. 

On January 23, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental section D 

questionnaire. On February 5, 2009, 

petitioners submitted comments 

regarding Ta Chen’s sections B and C 

response. On February 25, 2009, Ta 

Chen responded to the Department’s 

January 23, 2009, section D 

supplemental questionnaire. On 

February 27, 2009, the Department 

issued a sections A–C supplemental 

questionnaire. 

On March 5, 2009, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

preliminary results of this 

administrative review by 120 days, to 

not later than June 30, 2009. See 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Taiwan: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 9590 (March 5, 2009). 

On March 9, 2009, petitioners 

submitted comments with respect to Ta 

Chen’s section D supplemental 

questionnaire response. On March 12, 

2009, the Department issued a second 

section D supplemental questionnaire. 

On March 27, 2009, Ta Chen submitted 

separate responses to the section A–C 

supplemental questionnaire and the 

second section D supplemental 

questionnaire. Ta Chen submitted 

additional information with respect to 

the section D supplemental response on 

April 3, 2009. On April 9, 2009, the 

Department issued the third section D 

supplemental questionnaire. Ta Chen 

submitted a response to the third 

section D supplemental questionnaire 

on April 17, 2009. 

On April 22, 2009, the Department 

issued its verification agenda outlining 

the general procedures for the 

Department’s verification of Ta Chen’s 

cost information in Taiwan. Ta Chen 

submitted an unsolicited supplemental 

section D response on April 27, 2009. 

The Department verified Ta Chen’s cost 

information as submitted on the record, 

in Tainan, Taiwan from May 4, 2009, 

through May 8, 2009. See Verification of 

the Cost Response of Ta Chen Stainless 

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel BWPF from Taiwan (Ta Chen 

Verification Report), dated June 29, 

2009. The Department issued the second 

section A–C supplemental questionnaire 

on May 28, 2009. Ta Chen submitted a 

response to the second section A–C 

supplemental questionnaire on June 12, 

2009. The Department issued a third 

section A–C supplemental questionnaire 

on June 12, 2009. Ta Chen submitted a 

response to the third section A–C 

supplemental questionnaire on June 22, 

2009. 

Notice of Intent To Rescind Review in 

Part 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the 

Department may rescind an 

administrative review, in whole or with 

respect to a particular exporter or 

producer, if the Secretary concludes that 

there were no entries, exports, or sales 

of the subject merchandise during the 

POR. See, e.g., Certain Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from Mexico: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission, 71 FR 27676–78 (May 12, 

2006); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils from Japan: Final Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 26041 (May 3, 2006). 

On September 29, 2008 and October 

1, 2008, Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP, and 

Censor submitted certifications on the 

record certifying that their firms had no 

sales, entries, or exports of SSBWPFs to 

the United States during the POR. To 

confirm their statements, the 

Department conducted CBP inquiries in 

order to determine that there were no 

identifiable entries of SSBWPFs during 

the POR manufactured or exported by 

Liang Feng, Tru-Flow, PFP or Censor. 

There was no evidence of entries from 

these companies. See Memorandum to 

the File, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, from John Drury, 

Analyst, Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., 

Ltd. No Shipments Inquiry, dated May 

26, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department 

preliminarily intends to rescind this 

review with respect to Liang Feng, TruFlow, PFP and Censor. 

Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Order 

In Part 

On June 30, 2008, Ta Chen requested 

that, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), 

the Department revoke it from the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings 

from Taiwan at the conclusion of this 

administrative review. Ta Chen 

submitted along with its revocation 

request a certification stating that: (1) 

The company sold subject merchandise 

at not less than NV during the POR, and 

that in the future it would not sell such 

merchandise at less than NV; (2) the 

company has sold the subject 

merchandise to the United States in 

commercial quantities during each of 

the past three years; and (3) the 

company agrees to immediate 

reinstatement of the antidumping duty 

order, if the Department concludes that 

the company, subsequent to revocation, 

sold the subject merchandise at less 

than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e). 

In determining whether or not to 

revoke an antidumping duty order with 

respect to a particular producer/exporter 

under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), the 

Department considers whether: (1) The 

producer/exporter has sold the subject 

merchandise at not less than NV for a 

period of at least three consecutive 

years; (2) the producer/exporter has 

agreed to immediate reinstatement of 

the order if the Department finds that it 

has resumed making sales at less than 

NV; and (3) the continued application of 

the order is not otherwise necessary to 

offset dumping. In this case, our 

preliminary margin calculation shows 

that Ta Chen sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV during the 

current review period. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the Review’’ section below. 

Moreover, Ta Chen received 

antidumping duty margins above de 

minimis in the previous two 

administrative reviews. Ta Chen makes 

its request predicated on the assumption 

that action by the Court of International 

Trade will result in recalculations for 

both administrative reviews of margins 

at zero or de minimis. However, it is not 

the Department’s policy to take pending 

court appeals into account when 

determining whether revocation of the 

merchandise produced and exported by 

a particular company from an existing 

antidumping duty order is warranted. 

See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and 

Determination To Revoke in Part, 73 FR 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

32534 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 

66218, 66219 (Nov. 7, 2008). While we 

acknowledge that the Department’s 

determinations in the two prior 

segments of this proceeding are 

currently in litigation, there is no final 

and conclusive judgment from any court 

supporting Ta Chen’s arguments or 

invalidating the Department’s findings 

in the prior administrative reviews. 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that Ta 

Chen has sold subject merchandise at 

less than NV within the period of at 

least three consecutive years. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2), that revocation of the 

order with respect to Ta Chen is not 

warranted. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this order 

are certain stainless steel butt-weld pipe 

fittings, whether finished or unfinished, 

under 14 inches inside diameter. 

Certain welded stainless steel butt-weld 

pipe fittings are used to connect pipe 

sections in piping systems where 

conditions require welded connections. 

The subject merchandise is used where 

one or more of the following conditions 

is a factor in designing the piping 

system: (1) Corrosion of the piping 

system will occur if material other than 

stainless steel is used; (2) contamination 

of the material in the system by the 

system itself must be prevented; (3) high 

temperatures are present; (4) extreme 

low temperatures are present; and (5) 

high pressures are contained within the 

system. 

SSBWPFs come in a variety of shapes, 

with the following five shapes the most 

basic: Elbows, tees, reducers, stub ends, 

and caps. The edges of finished 

SSBWPFs are beveled. Threaded, 

grooved, and bolted fittings are 

excluded from the order. The SSBWPFs 

subject to the order are currently 

classifiable under subheading 

7307.23.00 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 the review is dispositive. 

SSBWPFs manufactured to American 

Society of Testing and Materials 

specification A774 are included in the 

scope of this order. 

Product Comparisons 

For the purpose of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

SSBWPFs sold in the United States, we 

considered all SSBWPFs covered by the 

scope that were sold by Ta Chen in the 

home market during the POR to be 

‘‘foreign like products,’’ in accordance 

with section 771(16) of the Act. Where 

there were no contemporaneous 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 physical characteristics reported 

by Ta Chen, as follows: Specification, 

seam, grade, size and schedule. 

The record shows that Ta Chen both 

purchased from and entered into tolling 

arrangements with unaffiliated 

Taiwanese manufacturers of SSBWPFs. 

We have preliminarily determined that 

Ta Chen is the sole exporter of the 

SSBWPFs under review, as the record 

evidence does not indicate that these 

manufacturers had knowledge that the 

purchased SSBWPFs would be exported 

to the United States. See Analysis 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order of Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

from Taiwan: Ta Chen Stainless Pipe 

Co., Ltd. (June 30, 2009) (Analysis 

Memorandum). 

Section 771(16)(A) of the Act defines 

‘‘foreign like product’’ to be ‘‘{t}he 

subject merchandise and other 

merchandise which is identical in 

physical characteristics with, and was 

produced in the same country by the 

same person as, that merchandise.’’ 

Thus, consistent with the Department’s 

past practice in reviews under this 

order, for products that Ta Chen has 

identified with certainty that it 

purchased from a particular unaffiliated 

producer and resold in the U.S. market, 

we have restricted the matching of 

products to products purchased by Ta 

Chen from the same unaffiliated 

producer and resold in the home 

market. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel 

Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent to Rescind in Part, 73 FR 38972 

(July 8, 2008) (unchanged in the final 

results) and Certain Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent to Rescind in Part, 71 FR 39663 

(July 13, 2006) (unchanged in the final 

results). For those products which Ta 

Chen cannot identify with certainty the 

producers from which certain 

merchandise was purchased, the 

Department has applied facts available. 

See ‘‘Application of Facts Available’’ 

section below. 

Date of Sale 

The Department’s regulations state 

that it will normally use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter’s or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business, as the date of sale. 

See 19 CFR 351.401(i). If the 

Department can establish ‘‘a different 

date {that} better reflects the date on 

which the exporter or producer 

establishes the material terms of sale,’’ 

the Department may choose a different 

date. Id. 

In the present review, Ta Chen 

claimed that invoice date should be 

used as the date of sale for its sales in 

the home market and to the United 

States. See Ta Chen’s section A 

questionnaire response, dated 

September 30, 2008, at 20–22. For home 

market (HM) sales, the Department 

examined whether the date Ta Chen 

issued its pro forma invoice or its actual 

invoice best reflects the date of sale. 

Based upon our review of the record 

evidence, we have preliminarily 

determined that actual invoice date 

should be the sale date because the 

material terms are set on the invoice 

date, and can potentially be changed up 

until the point of invoice date. This 

methodology is consistent with the 

practice in all the previous reviews of 

this proceeding. See Ta Chen’s section 

B through D questionnaire response, 

dated October 16, 2008, at B–8 through 

B–10 and C–8 through C–10. For U.S. 

sales, Ta Chen reported only 

constructed export price (CEP) sales, 

and we used the invoice date (or 

shipment date, if the shipment date 

occurred before the invoice date) for 

sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. 

customer as changes to the terms of the 

sale may occur up to the issuance of the 

invoice (or shipment of the 

merchandise, if the shipment date 

occurred before the invoice date). See 

Ta Chen’s section A questionnaire 

response, dated September 30, 2008, at 

20–22. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

SSBWPFs by Ta Chen to the United 

States were made at prices below NV, 

we compared CEP to NV, as described 

below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of 

the Act, we compared the CEPs of 

individual U.S. transactions to the 

monthly weighted-average NV of the 

foreign like product. 

Constructed Export Price 

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP 

as ‘‘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 * * *’’ Consistent 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32535 

with recent past reviews, pursuant to 

section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated 

the price of Ta Chen’s sales based on 

CEP because the sale to the first 

unaffiliated U.S. customer was made by 

Ta Chen’s U.S. affiliate, Ta Chen 

International (TCI). See Analysis 

Memorandum, dated June 30, 2009. Ta 

Chen has two channels of distribution 

for U.S. sales: (1) Ta Chen ships the 

merchandise to TCI for inventory in its 

warehouses and subsequent resale to 

unaffiliated buyers (stock sales), and (2) 

Ta Chen ships the merchandise directly 

to TCI’s U.S. customer (indent sales). 

See Ta Chen’s section A questionnaire 

response, dated September 30, 2008, at 

A–16. The Department finds that both 

stock and indent sales qualify as CEP 

sales because the original sale is 

between TCI and the U.S. customer. In 

addition, TCI handles all 

communication with the U.S. customer, 

from customer order to receipt of 

payment, and incurs the risk of nonpayment. Also, TCI generally handles 

customer complaints concerning issues 

such as product quality, specifications, 

delivery, and product returns. TCI is 

also responsible for payment of the 

ocean freight for all U.S. sales, while Ta 

Chen arranges the ocean freight logistics 

and paperwork. See Ta Chen’s section C 

questionnaire response, dated October 

16, 2008, at C–26 through C–28 and 

Appendix 30 and the section A–C 

supplemental response, dated March 27, 

2009, at 9. 

We calculated CEP based on exwarehouse or delivered prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States and, where appropriate, we 

added billing adjustments and deducted 

discounts. In accordance with section 

772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department 

deducted direct and indirect selling 

expenses, including inventory carrying 

costs incurred by TCI for stock sales, 

related to commercial activity in the 

United States. We also made deductions 

for movement expenses, which include 

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 

and handling, ocean freight, 

containerization expense, Taiwan 

harbor construction tax, marine 

insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, and U.S. 

customs duties. For indent sales, we 

also made deductions for U.S. port 

warehousing expenses. See Ta Chen’s 

section A–C supplemental response, 

dated March 27, 2009, at 20–21. Finally, 

in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) 

and 772(f) of the Act, we deducted CEP 

profit. 

Normal Value 

1. Home Market Viability 

To determine whether there is a 

sufficient volume of sales in the home 

market to serve as a viable basis for 

calculating NV, we compared Ta Chen’s 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

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

the Act. As Ta Chen’s aggregate volume 

of home market sales of the foreign like 

product was greater than five percent of 

its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the 

subject merchandise, we determined 

that the home market was viable. See Ta 

Chen’s section A response, dated 

September 30, 2008, at 2 and Exhibit 1. 

2. Cost of Production Analysis 

Because we disregarded sales below 

the cost of production (COP) in the prior 

administrative review, we have 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales by Ta Chen in its home market 

were made at prices below the COP, 

pursuant to sections 773(b)(1) and 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind 

in Part, 73 FR 38972 (July 8, 2008), and 

Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe 

Fittings from Taiwan: Final Results and 

Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 1174 

(January 12, 2009). 

Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b) 

of the Act, we conducted a COP analysis 

of HM sales by Ta Chen. 

A. Calculation of COP 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the respondent’s cost of 

materials and fabrication for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for general 

and administrative (G&A) expenses, 

financial expenses and all costs and 

expenses incidental to packing the 

merchandise. See ‘‘Test of Home Market 

Sales Prices’’ section below for 

treatment of home market selling 

expenses. In our COP analysis, we have 

relied upon Ta Chen’s cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’) and constructed 

value (‘‘CV’’) information from the 

company’s submissions dated April 3, 

2009, as amended April 27, 2009, 

(‘‘Revised Section D Database’’) except 

in the following instances. 

First, we adjusted Ta Chen’s reported 

direct material costs to reflect the actual 

costs of the direct material used to 

produce the merchandise under 

consideration produced during the POR 

(i.e., pipe). We adjusted the reported 

pipe costs because we found that the 

reported costs do not reasonably reflect 

the costs incurred to produce the 

merchandise under consideration 

during the POR in accordance with 

section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act. The 

reported pipe costs do not reflect actual 

costs because the direct material 

variances used to calculate the costs as 

reported in Ta Chen’s normal books and 

records include amounts accumulated 

from prior to the POR. 

To determine the adjustment to Ta 

Chen’s reported per-unit direct material 

costs, we relied on the results of our 

analysis of nineteen control numbers 

(‘‘CONNUMs’’) for which the monthly 

per-unit standard direct material costs 

and related production quantities were 

available on the record of this 

proceeding. We recalculated the 

monthly per-unit direct material costs 

for these CONNUMs by applying the 

related monthly variances incurred by 

the pipe plant to the standard monthly 

direct material costs of each CONNUM. 

We calculated the monthly variances of 

the pipe plant as the ratio of the total 

actual material and conversion costs 

incurred by the pipe plant for a 

particular month to the total standard 

costs incurred by the pipe plant for that 

month. We calculated the revised 

weight-averaged POR per-unit direct 

material cost per kg for each of the 

nineteen CONNUMs, determined the 

percentage difference between the 

revised and reported direct material 

costs of each of the CONNUMs, and 

then calculated one overall weightaveraged percentage of difference based 

on the production quantities (i.e. 

weight) of the CONNUMs. We applied 

this adjustment to the per-unit direct 

material costs of all CONNUMs reported 

as self-produced or subcontracted. 

Second, we reduced the costs of Ta 

Chen’s self-produced and subcontracted 

products for the purchase price variance 

incurred on purchased products. In its 

normal books and records, Ta Chen 

assigns any purchase price variances 

incurred on the purchased products 

among all products whether purchased, 

self-produced, or subcontracted. We 

find that Ta Chen’s methodology, which 

was used as the basis for the company’s 

reported costs, is distortive because the 

purchase price variance included in the 

costs of the self-produced and 

subcontracted products does not relate 

to the self-produced and subcontracted 

products. Therefore, for purposes of 

these preliminary results, we have 

adjusted the reported costs of the selfproduced and subcontracted products to 

exclude the purchase price variance 

from those costs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

32536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 

Finally, we revised the numerator of 

Ta Chen’s reported general and 

administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expense rate to 

include certain expenses excluded by 

Ta Chen. We also reduced the 

numerator of the G&A expense rate for 

gains realized in FY 2007 on the 

disposals of assets. See Memorandum 

from LaVonne Clark, Senior 

Accountant, through Michael P. Martin, 

Lead Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting: Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Ta Chen Stainless 

Steel Pipe Co., Ltd., June 30, 2009. 

B. Test of Home Market Prices 

We compared the weighted-average 

COP to home market sales of the foreign 

like product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine 

whether these sales had been made at 

prices below the COP. In determining 

whether to disregard home market sales 

made at prices below the COP, we 

examined whether such sales were 

made within an extended period of time 

in substantial quantities, and were not 

at prices that permitted the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

C. Results of COP Test 

In accordance with section 773(b)(1) 

of the Act, when less than 20 percent of 

Ta Chen’s sales of a given product were 

at prices less than the COP, we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because we determined that the 

below-cost sales were not made in 

substantial quantities, as defined by 

section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. When 20 

percent or more of Ta Chen’s sales of a 

given product during the POR were at 

prices less than the COP, we determined 

that such sales have been made in 

‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an 

extended period of time, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act. In such cases, because we use POR 

average costs, we also determined that 

such sales were not made at prices that 

would permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this 

administrative review, we appropriately 

disregarded below-cost sales and used 

the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

3. Price-to-Price Comparisons 

As there were sales at prices above the 

COP for all product comparisons, we 

based NV on prices to home market 

customers. We deducted credit expenses 

and added interest revenue. In addition, 

we made adjustments, where 

appropriate, for physical differences in 

the merchandise in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 

Finally, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6) of the Act, we also deducted 

home market packing costs and added 

U.S. packing costs. 

Application of Facts Available 

Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 

Act, the Department finds that the use 

of facts available (‘‘FA’’) is appropriate 

with regard to Ta Chen’s sales in the 

United States of merchandise purchased 

from other Taiwanese producers 

because the Department is unable to 

identify with certainty the actual 

producer of the merchandise being sold 

by Ta Chen. Additionally, based on 

information obtained in the verification, 

the Department finds that the use of FA 

is appropriate with regard to sales of 

two of Ta Chen’s CONNUMs because 

evidence on the record indicates that all 

sales of these CONNUMs should be 

classified as material purchased from 

other manufacturers. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides 

that, if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested; (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding under the antidumping 

statute; or (D) provides such information 

but the information cannot be verified, 

the Department shall, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. Section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department must 

inform the interested party of the nature 

of any deficiency in its response and, to 

the extent practicable, allow the 

interested party to remedy or explain 

such deficiency. We find that pursuant 

to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the 

application of FA is warranted because 

Ta Chen failed to identify with certainty 

the manufacturer for certain sales of 

SSBWPFs made by Ta Chen and did not 

properly identify two CONNUMs in the 

sales databases as purchased products, 

per evidence collected at verification. 

A. Identity of Manufacturers 

Ta Chen not only manufactures 

subject fittings, but it also purchases 

completed fittings and has some toll 

processing performed by other 

unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers. 

See Ta Chen’s section A questionnaire 

response dated September 30, 2008, at 

pages 2–4 and 31–32. Ta Chen indicated 

that it reported itself (i.e., Ta Chen) as 

the manufacturer for sales observations 

which it produced. For those which 

were toll processed, Ta Chen identified 

the manufacturer or manufacturers that 

toll processed the type of fittings in 

question. In instances where the sale 

was made of fittings purchased from a 

supplier, Ta Chen stated that it reported 

the supplier or suppliers of the type of 

fittings in question as the 

manufacturer(s) in its sales databases. 

See Ta Chen’s section B and C response, 

dated October 16, 2008, at B–37 through 

B–38, and C–54 through C–55; see also 

Ta Chen’s supplemental section D 

questionnaire response, dated February 

25, 2009, at 3 through 4, Ta Chen’s 

supplemental section A–C questionnaire 

response, dated March 27, 2009, at 2 

through 4 and Appendices Q2b and 

Q2c, Ta Chen’s supplemental section A– 

C questionnaire response, dated June 22, 

2009, at 1 through 3, Ta Chen’s 

supplemental section A–C questionnaire 

response, dated June 22, 2009, at 1 

through 3, Ta Chen’s supplemental 

section A–C response, dated June 24, 

2009, at 1 through 2 and its other June 

24, 2009 supplemental section A–C 

response at 1 through 3. Once the 

fittings that are toll-produced or 

purchased enter into Ta Chen’s 

inventory system, Ta Chen states that it 

is neither able to distinguish between 

the manufacturers that toll process 

merchandise nor able to distinguish 

merchandise from those that supply 

certain types of subject fittings that Ta 

Chen re-sells. See Ta Chen’s 

supplemental section A–C questionnaire 

response, dated March 27, 2009, at 2 

through 4 and Appendices Q2b and 

Q2c. 

Appendices A2b and Q2c of the 

March 27, 2009 supplemental 

questionnaire response identifies 

fittings which are purchased, 

subcontracted, or manufactured by Ta 

Chen. These fittings are identified by 

control number (CONNUM). Thus, 

evidence on the record indicates that 

CONNUMs of merchandise purchased 

by Ta Chen were unique and were 

neither manufactured by Ta Chen nor 

toll produced. In addition, Appendix 

Q2c indicates that some of the fittings 

purchased from other producers were 

manufactured by only one producer 

during the POR. Id. 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that it is able to segregate 

those sales which were toll-produced on 

behalf of Ta Chen from those sales of 

merchandise which were purchased 

from unrelated manufacturers. However, 

Ta Chen was unable to report the actual 

producer of the purchased fittings. See 

Analysis Memorandum dated June 30, 

2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32537 

As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of 

the Act provides that, inter alia, if an 

interested party or any other person 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department or 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under the antidumping statute, the 

administering authority and the 

Commission shall, subject to section 

782(d), use the facts otherwise available 

in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title. 

We preliminarily find that the use of 

FA is warranted in accordance with 

section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, because 

Ta Chen did not specifically identify the 

manufacturer of the subject 

merchandise, as requested by the 

Department in its antidumping duty 

questionnaire and in its February 27, 

2009, supplemental questionnaire. 

Consistent with section 782(d) of the 

Act, the Department requested 

clarification of Ta Chen’s reporting of 

the manufacturers’ identities with 

respect to the purchased fittings. 

However, Ta Chen reported that it 

‘‘could not determine the subcontracted 

items or purchased items from (the) 

specific subcontractor or vendor’’ See 

Ta Chen’s section A–C supplemental 

questionnaire response, dated March 27, 

2009, at 2. Pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act, we determine that an 

application of FA to those sales 

identified as purchased from other 

manufacturers, and not identified 

specifically as produced by one 

company, is appropriate. Because Ta 

Chen has stated that it is unable to 

segregate merchandise once it enters 

into its accounting system, and because 

certain merchandise was identified as 

possibly being produced by more than 

one producer, the Department will 

apply FA to those sales of merchandise 

purchased from other sources where the 

producer is not specifically identified. 

As FA, the Department will apply to 

those sales identified as sales of 

purchased merchandise, where the 

producer is not specifically identified, 

the average rate calculated for all 

merchandise produced or toll processed 

by Ta Chen. 

B. Control Numbers 

As noted above, Ta Chen not only 

manufactures subject fittings, but also 

purchases completed fittings and has 

some toll processing performed by other 

unaffiliated Taiwanese manufacturers. 

During verification, Ta Chen stated to 

the Department that all of the fittings 

purchased from other manufacturers 

had certain identical physical 

characteristics. That is, if a fitting had 

a specific physical characteristic, it was 

purchased from a different 

manufacturer. See Verification of the 

Cost Questionnaire Responses of Ta 

Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Review of Certain 

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

from Taiwan (Ta Chen Verification 

Report), June 29, 2009, at 14. However, 

for all sales of three CONNUMs, Ta 

Chen reported that these fittings were 

toll-produced rather than purchased. 

We preliminarily find that the use of 

FA is warranted in accordance with 

section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, because 

Ta Chen did not sufficiently identify 

certain sales of the subject merchandise 

as purchased from other manufacturers, 

as requested by the Department in its 

antidumping duty questionnaire and in 

its February 27, 2009, supplemental 

questionnaire. Consistent with section 

782(d) of the Act, the Department 

requested clarification of Ta Chen’s 

reporting of the manufacturers’ 

identities with respect to the purchased 

fittings. Despite Ta Chen’s statements 

that it had identified all sales in terms 

of manufacturing type, evidence on the 

record indicates that Ta Chen did not 

identify these certain sales as 

purchased. See Ta Chen’s section A–C 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

dated March 27, 2009, at 2. See also Ta 

Chen’s section D supplemental 

questionnaire response, dated February 

25, 2009, at 1–4; Ta Chen’s section A– 

C supplemental questionnaire response, 

dated March 27, 2009, at 1–4 and 

Exhibits Q2b and Q2c; Ta Chen’s 

Section A–C supplemental 

questionnaire response, dated June 22, 

2009, at 1–3; and Ta Chen’s section A– 

C supplemental questionnaire response, 

dated June 24, 2009, at 1–2, and its 

other supplemental questionnaire 

response, also dated June 24, 2009, at 1– 

3. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, 

we determine that an application of FA 

to those sales identified as toll-produced 

that should be identified as purchased 

from other manufacturers is appropriate. 

Because Ta Chen did not segregate 

merchandise as purchased, the 

Department will apply FA to those sales 

of merchandise identified as tollproduced but having certain physical 

characteristics indicating that they were 

purchased from other manufacturers. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determined NV based on 

sales in the comparison market at the 

same level of trade (LOT) as the CEP 

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the 

starting-price sales in the comparison 

market. For CEP, it is the level of the 

constructed sale from the exporter to the 

importer. To determine whether NV 

sales are at a different LOT than CEP 

sales, we examine different selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer. 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 

comparison market sales at the LOT of 

the export transaction, where possible, 

we make a LOT adjustment under 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 

for CEP sales for which we are unable 

to quantify a LOT adjustment, 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 levels between NV and CEP sales 

affects price comparability, we adjust 

NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act 

(the CEP offset provision). 

Ta Chen reported two channels of 

distribution in the home market: 

unaffiliated distributors and end-users. 

We examined the selling activities 

reported for each channel of distribution 

and organized the reported selling 

activities into the following four selling 

functions: Sales process and marketing 

support, freight and delivery, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical services. We 

found that Ta Chen’s level of selling 

functions to its home market customers 

for each of the four selling functions did 

not vary significantly by channel of 

distribution. See Ta Chen’s section A 

response, dated September 30, 2008, at 

16 through 24 and Appendix 30; see 

also Ta Chen’s section A–C 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

dated March 27, 2009, at 4 through 11. 

Therefore, we preliminarily conclude 

that the selling functions for the 

reported channels of distribution 

constitute one LOT in the comparison 

market. 

For CEP sales, we examined the 

selling activities related to each of the 

selling functions between Ta Chen and 

its U.S. affiliate, TCI. All of Ta Chen’s 

sales to the United States were CEP 

sales made through TCI. There were two 

types of CEP sales; those sales from 

TCI’s inventory to unaffiliated 

customers, and ‘‘back-to-back’’ CEP 

sales (called indent sales by Ta Chen) 

where merchandise is shipped directly 

from the foreign manufacturer/reseller 

to the unrelated U.S. customers. For 

indent sales, Ta Chen invoices TCI and 

TCI invoices the unrelated customers. 

Thus, while the channel of distribution 

for U.S. sales is from Ta Chen to TCI, 

there are different types of sales within 

this channel of distribution and 

different selling activities provided by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

32538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 

Ta Chen to TCI depending upon the 

type of CEP sale. However, the 

Department does not find these CEP 

sales to be at different LOTs. The types 

of customers are identical. Additionally, 

the selling functions provided by Ta 

Chen to TCI for both types of sales 

appear to be substantially similar. 

Therefore, we preliminary determine 

that Ta Chen’s U.S. sales constitute a 

single LOT. See Analysis Memorandum 

dated June 30, 2009. 

In analyzing the respective LOTs for 

home market sales and U.S. CEP sales, 

the Department’s practice is to 

‘‘examine stages in the marketing 

process and selling functions along the 

chain of distribution between the 

producer and the unaffiliated 

customer.’’ See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

Romania: Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 44821, 44824 (‘‘HRS from 

Romania’’) (August 9, 2007) (unchanged 

in final results, Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

Romania: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

71357 (December 17, 2007)). If the home 

market sales are at a different LOT than 

CEP sales and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between sales on which NV is based and 

home market sales at the LOT of the 

export transaction, the Department 

makes a level of trade adjustment under 

Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See HRS 

from Romania at 44824. 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 levels between NV and 

CEP affects price comparability, we 

adjust NV under Section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act (the CEP offset). Id. Substantial 

differences in selling activities are a 

necessary, but not sufficient, condition 

for determining that there is a difference 

in the stages of marketing. See 19 CFR 

351.412(c)(2). Some overlap in selling 

activities will not preclude a 

determination that two sales are at 

different stages of marketing. Id. It is 

within this framework that the 

Department conducts its LOT analysis. 

We compared the selling functions Ta 

Chen provided in the home market LOT 

with the selling functions provided to 

the U.S. LOT. Based on our analysis, we 

preliminarily determine that the HM 

LOT is not at a more advanced level 

than Ta Chen’s U.S. LOT. As stated 

above, the Department analyzes selling 

activities in four categories: sales 

process and marketing support, freight 

and delivery, inventory maintenance 

and warehousing, and warranty and 

technical services. For the first category, 

the sales process and marketing support 

includes the following selling activities: 

customer contact, order acceptance, risk 

of non-payment, payment processing, 

market research, and travel and 

entertainment. The freight and delivery 

category includes packing and loading 

as well as freight and delivery. The 

inventory maintenance category stands 

alone, while the warranty and technical 

services category includes customer 

complaints, technical assistance, and 

after-sale services. 

Of the twelve selling functions, Ta 

Chen reported that sales in the home 

market had higher selling activities in 

eleven of the twelve selling functions. 

However, based on our analysis of the 

evidence on the record, we 

preliminarily determine that five of the 

selling activities (order acceptance, 

inventory maintenance, market 

research, technical assistance, and 

packing/loading) are, on the whole, 

equal in both the home market LOT and 

CEP LOT. Additionally, we 

preliminarily determine that three of the 

selling functions (risk of non-payment, 

payment processing, and customer 

contact) are more intense in the home 

market LOT than in the CEP LOT. Also, 

we preliminarily determine that one of 

the selling functions (freight and 

delivery), is more intense in the U.S. 

market. Finally, for the travel and 

entertainment and the customer 

complaints selling functions, we 

preliminarily find that we are unable to 

determine with certainty the levels of 

selling activities in both markets but 

believe that they are substantially 

similar. Therefore, based on the 

Department’s examination of the 

claimed selling functions, we 

preliminarily determine that the home 

market LOT is not at a more advanced 

stage than the CEP LOT and are not 

granting a CEP offset. See Analysis 

Memorandum dated June 30, 2009. 

Currency Conversion 

For purposes of the preliminary 

results, we made currency conversions 

into U.S. dollars based on the exchange 

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 

sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve 

Bank, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine the weightedaverage dumping margin for the 

producer/exporter listed below for the 

period June 1, 2007, through May 31, 

2008, to be as follows: 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., 

Ltd ..................................... 0.80% 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to the proceedings the 

calculations performed in connection 

with these preliminary results within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 

parties may submit cases briefs not later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice or the first 

business day thereafter. Rebuttal briefs, 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be filed not later than 35 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice or the first business day 

thereafter. Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Room 1870, within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice or the first business day 

thereafter. Requests should contain: (1) 

The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and, (3) a list of issues to 

be discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the respective 

case briefs. The Department will issue 

the final results of the administrative 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any written 

briefs, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, 

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

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this review the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. In accordance with 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated an importer-specific ad 

valorem rate for merchandise exported 

by Ta Chen which is subject to this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication of final results of 

this review. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 8, 2009 / Notices 32539 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China, 

52 FR 22667 (June 15, 1987). 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification will apply to entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR 

produced by Ta Chen or by any of the 

companies for which we are rescinding 

this review and for which Ta Chen or 

each no-shipment respondent did not 

know its merchandise would be 

exported by another company to the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the all-others rate if there is no 

rate for the intermediate company(ies) 

involved in the transaction. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication 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 listed in the final results 

of review; (2) for previously 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 LTFV 

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) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate of 51.01 percent, which is 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the 

LTFV investigation. See LTFV Order. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) 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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/ 

CVD Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–16114 Filed 7–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–601] 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is currently conducting 

the 2007–2008 administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on tapered 

roller bearings and parts thereof, 

finished or unfinished (‘‘TRBs’’), from 

the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

covering the period June 1, 2007, 

through May 31, 2008. This 

administrative review covers one 

producer/exporter of the subject 

merchandise, i.e. Peer Bearing Company 

Changshan (‘‘CPZ’’). We preliminarily 

determine that CPZ made sales below 

normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importer– 

specific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue final results no later than 

120 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Veith or Brendan Quinn, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4295 or (202) 482– 

5848, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 15, 1987, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on TRBs from 

the PRC.1 On June 9, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on tapered roller bearings from the PRC. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 

(June 9, 2008). On June 30, 2008, CPZ, 

an exporter of TRBs, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of its sales. Additionally, on June 

30, 2008, the Timken Company, of 

Canton, Ohio (‘‘Petitioner’’) requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of all entries of 

subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by CPZ. On July 30, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of TRBs from the PRC for the period 

June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008, for 

CPZ. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

On September 9, 2008, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to CPZ. CPZ submitted its 

Section A questionnaire response on 

October 8, 2008, a supplement to its 

Section A submission on October 15, 

2008, its Section C questionnaire 

response on October 24, 2008, and its 

Section D questionnaire response on 

October 29, 2008. The Department 

issued CPZ a supplemental Section A 

questionnaire on January 29, 2009, a 

supplemental Section C questionnaire 

on February 17, 2009, and a 

supplemental Section D questionnaire 

and second supplemental Section A 

questionnaire on March 11, 2009. CPZ 

submitted its supplemental Section A 

questionnaire response on February 20, 

2009, its supplemental Section C 

response on March 12, 2009, its second 

supplemental Section A questionnaire 

response on March 26, 2009, the first 

part of the supplemental Section D 

response and a revised Section C 

database on April 2, 2009, and the 

second part of the supplemental Section 

D response on April 16, 2009. 

On February 19, 2009, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit for the 

preliminary results of review by 90 days 

until June 1, 2009. See Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES