You are on page 1of 8

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.

44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices 11379

VII. Agency Contacts Executive Order 12838, in that its Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper
A. Web site: http://www.usda.gov/rus/ charter is of compelling national interest from India, 73 FR 7916 (February 15,
water. The USDA Rural Development’s and that other methods of obtaining 2006); and Notice of Preliminary
Web site maintains up-to-date resources public participation have been Affirmative Countervailing Duty
and contact information for the considered, the Committee was Determination and Preliminary Negative
Technical Assistance Grants program. rechartered in March 2002 and again in Critical Circumstances, Certain Lined
B. Phone: (202) 720–9586. February 2004. Paper from Indonesia, 71 FR 7524
C. Fax: (202) 690–0649. The Committee will consist of a Chair (February 13, 2006). On February 17,
D. E-mail: anita.obrien@wdc.usda.gov. and 35 other members with a substantial 2006, the petitions submitted a letter
E. Main point of contact: Anita interest in the conduct and outcome of requesting alignment of the final
O’Brien, Loan Specialist, Water and the Census Bureau’s economic, determination in these investigations
Environmental Programs, Water demographic, decennial census, with the final determination in the
Programs Division, USDA Rural statistical research, and marketing respective companion antidumping
Development. programs. The Committee includes investigations. Therefore, in accordance
representatives from academia, private with section 705(a)(1) the Tariff Act of
Dated: February 24, 2006.
enterprise, professional associations, 1930, as amended (the Act), we are
James M. Andrew, and nonprofit organizations, which are aligning the final determination in these
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service. further diversified by business type, investigations with the final
[FR Doc. E6–3170 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am] geographic area, and other variables. determinations in the antidumping duty
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P The Committee will function solely as investigations of lined paper products
an advisory body and in compliance from India and Indonesia.
with provisions of the Federal Advisory This notice is issued and published
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Committee Act. Copies of the revised pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act.
charter will be filed with the Dated: February 28, 2006.
Bureau of the Census appropriate Committees of the Congress
David M. Spooner,
and with the Library of Congress.
Census Advisory Committee of Assistant Secretary for Import
Professional Associations Dated: March 1, 2006. Administration.
Charles Louis Kincannon, [FR Doc. 06–2139 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Director, Bureau of the Census. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E6–3158 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
ACTION: Notice of Renewal. BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SUMMARY: The U.S. Bureau of the
Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice International Trade Administration
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
that the charter for the Census Advisory
Committee of Professional Associations A–533–809
International Trade Administration
has been renewed.
(C–533–844, C–500–819) Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
From India; Preliminary Results of
Committee Liaison Officer Jeri Green, Certain Lined Paper Products From Antidumping Duty Administrative
Chief, Census Advisory Committee India and Indonesia: Alignment of First Review
Office, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3627, Countervailing Duty Determination
Federal Building 3, Washington, DC With Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration,
20233. Her telephone number is 301– International Trade Administration,
763–2075, TDD 301–457–2540. AGENCY: Import Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In International Trade Administration, SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
accordance with the provisions of the Department of Commerce. (the Department) is conducting an
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006. administrative review of the
5, United States Code, Appendix 2, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: antidumping duty order on certain
the General Services Administration Maura Jeffords or Robert Copyak (India), forged stainless steel flanges (stainless
(GSA) rule on Federal Advisory and David Layton or David Neubacher steel flanges) from India manufactured
Committee Management, Title 41, Code (Indonesia) AD/CVD Operations, Import by Echjay Forgings Ltd. (Echjay) and
of Federal Regulations, Part 101–6, and Administration, International Trade Paramount Forge (Paramount). The
after consultation with GSA, the Administration, U.S. Department of period of review (POR) covers February
Secretary of Commerce has determined Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. We
that the renewal of the Census Advisory Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; preliminarily determine that Echjay did
Committee of Professional Associations telephone (202) 482–3146 or (202) 482– not sell subject merchandise at less than
is in the public interest in connection 2209, and (202) 482–0371 or (202) 482– normal value (NV) in the United States
with the performance of duties imposed 5823, respectively. during the POR. In addition, we
by law on the Department of Commerce. preliminarily determine to apply an
The Committee was established in Background adverse facts available (AFA) rate to
January 1973 to obtain expertise relating On February 6, 2006, we completed Paramount’s sale.
to major programs, such as the the preliminary affirmative We invite interested parties to
decennial census of population and countervailing duty determinations comment on these preliminary results.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

housing, the agriculture and economic pertaining to certain lined paper Parties who submit argument in these
censuses, current demographic and products from India and Indonesia. See proceedings are requested to submit
economic statistics programs, survey Notice of Preliminary Affirmative with the argument (1) a statement of the
research, and marketing analysis. Countervailing Duty Determination and issues and (2) a brief summary of the
Meeting the standards set forth in Preliminary Negative Critical argument.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1
11380 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006. on November 10, 2005, to which Echjay in whole or in part, if a party who
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: responded (in two parts) on November requested the review withdraws the
David Cordell (Echjay), Mark Flessner 30, 2005, and December 1, 2005. A final request within 90 days of the date of
(Paramount), or Robert James, AD/CVD supplemental was issued on December publication of notice of initiation of the
Operations, Office 7, Import 19, 2005, and the response was received requested review. Section 351.213(d)(1)
Administration, International Trade on January 4, 2006. of the Department’s regulations also
Administration, U.S. Department of Paramount states that the Secretary may extend this
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution time limit if the Secretary decides it is
The Department sent its reasonable to do so. The initiation
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
questionnaires to Paramount on March notice for this review was published on
telephone: (202) 482–0408, (202) 482–
31, 2005. Paramount’s response to the March 23, 2005. Viraj and Hilton Forge
6312, or (202) 482–0649, respectively.
section A questionnaire was submitted withdrew their requests for review on
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: May 4, 2005. Paramount’s responses to April 18, 2005, which was within 90
Background sections B and C were submitted on days of the date of publication of the
May 18, 2005. A supplemental section initiation notice of the review. No other
On February 9, 1994, the Department A, B, and C questionnaire was sent to
published the antidumping duty order party has requested a review of Viraj or
Paramount on August 5, 2005. Hilton Forge in the POR. Since the two
on stainless steel flanges from India. See Paramount submitted its response to the
Amended Final Determination and parties which had requested
first supplemental section A, B, and C administrative reviews have withdrawn
Antidumping Duty Order; Certain questionnaire on September 7, 2005.
Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from their requests in a timely manner, we
The Department issued on November 8, are rescinding the administrative
India, 59 FR 5994 (February 9, 1994) 2005, a second supplemental section A,
(Amended Final Determination). On reviews of Viraj and Hilton Forge. With
B, and C questionnaire. Paramount respect to Hilton Forge, the Department
February 1, 2005, the Department submitted its response on November 29,
published the Notice of Opportunity to will issue appropriate assessment
2005. instructions to U.S. Customs and Border
Request Administrative Review for this
order covering the POR. See Scope of the order Protection (CBP) within 15 days of
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty The products covered by this order publication of this notice. With respect
Order, Finding, or Suspended are certain forged stainless steel flanges, to Viraj, the Department has already
Investigation; Opportunity to Request both finished and not finished, issued liquidation instructions for this
Administrative Review, 70 FR 5136 generally manufactured to specification period as the order for Viraj was
(February 1, 2005). In accordance with ASTM A–182, and made in alloys such revoked on July 12, 2005. See Stainless
19 CFR 351.213 (b)(2), Echjay, Hilton as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope Steel Flanges From India: Notice of
Forge, Paramount, and Viraj Group Ltd. includes five general types of flanges. Final Results of Antidumping Duty
(Viraj) requested that we conduct this They are weld–neck, used for butt–weld Administrative Review and Revocation
administrative review. On March 23, line connection; threaded, used for in Part, 70 FR 39997 (July 12, 2005) and
2005, the Department published in the threaded line connections; slip–on and CBP message number 5227209.
Federal Register a notice of initiation of lap joint, used with stub–ends/butt– Paramount
this antidumping duty administrative weld line connections; socket weld,
review covering the POR. See Initiation Use of Adverse Facts Available
used to fit pipe into a machined
of Antidumping and Countervailing recession; and blind, used to seal off a In accordance with section 776(a)(2)
Duty Administrative Reviews and line. The sizes of the flanges within the of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
Requests for Revocation in Part, 70 FR scope range generally from one to six (the Tariff Act), the Department has
14643 (March 23, 2005). inches; however, all sizes of the above– determined that the use of adverse facts
On October 13, 2005, we extended the described merchandise are included in available is appropriate for purposes of
time limit for the preliminary results of the scope. Specifically excluded from determining the preliminary dumping
this administrative review to February the scope of this order are cast stainless margin for the subject merchandise sold
28, 2006. See Notice of Extension of steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges by Paramount. Pursuant to section
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of generally are manufactured to 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act the
Antidumping Duty Administrative specification ASTM A–351. The flanges Department shall (with certain
Review and Notice of Partial Rescission: subject to this order are currently exceptions not applicable here) use the
Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges classifiable under subheadings facts otherwise available in reaching
from India, 70 FR 59719 (October 13, 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the applicable determinations under this
2005). Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). subtitle if an interested party (A)
Although the HTS subheading is withholds information that has been
Echjay requested by the administrating
provided for convenience and customs
On March 31, 2005, the Department purposes, the written description of the authority; (B) fails to provide such
issued its initial questionnaire to merchandise under review is dispositive information by the deadlines for
Echjay. Echjay submitted its section A of whether or not the merchandise is submission of the information or in the
response on May 2, 2005, and its section covered by the scope of the order. form and manner requested, subject to
B and C responses on May 12, 2005. The subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
Department issued a supplemental Rescission of the Administrative of the Tariff Act; (C) significantly
questionnaire on August 5, 2005, to Review impedes a proceeding under this
which Echjay responded on August 30, On April 18, 2005, respondents Viraj subtitle; or (D) provides such
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

2005. A second supplemental and Hilton Forge withdrew their information but the information cannot
questionnaire was issued on October 27, requests for an administrative review. be verified as provided in section 782(i).
2005, and the Department received the Pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the See Tariff Act section 776(a)(2).
response on November 18, 2005. The Department’s regulations, the Secretary Moreover, section 776(b) of the Tariff
Department issued a third supplemental will rescind an administrative review, Act provides, in relevant part, that:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices 11381

If the administering authority finds Department directed specifically at this determining an antidumping duty
that an interested party has failed to discrepancy between the reported margin for Paramount. As a result, we
cooperate by not acting to the best quantity and value figures in the are basing Paramount’s margin on the
of its ability to comply with a original and supplemental section A facts otherwise available, in accordance
request for information from the responses and the sales reported in the with sections 776(a)(2)(A) – (C) and
administering authority or the databases for the original and section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. See, e.g.,
Commission, the administering supplemental section B responses, it Notice of Final Determination of Sales
authority or the Commission (as the became clear that Paramount had at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
case may be), in reaching the reported in its section B databases less Final Determination of Critical
applicable determination under this than one percent of its home market Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice
subtitle, may use an inference that sales. In its response, Paramount From Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (January 13,
is adverse to the interests of the admitted it was reporting ‘‘on a sample 2006). See also Notice of Final
party in selecting from among the basis to give insight of our working.’’ Determination of Sales of Less Than
facts otherwise available. See Paramount’s November 29, 2005, Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Id. response to second supplemental Circumstances: Carbon and Certain
The Department sent standard section section A, B, and C questionnaire at Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR
A, B, and C questionnaires to Paramount page 2. Paramount also stated: ‘‘We had 55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30, 2002); Notice
on March 31, 2005. Paramount’s provided you two bills consisting of of Final Determination of Sales at Less
response to the section A questionnaire eight transactions as samples. This does Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled
was submitted May 4, 2005. not reflect our total sales of the year.’’ Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel
Paramount’s responses to sections B and See Paramount’s November 29, 2005, Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5567
C were submitted on May 18, 2005. The response to the Department’s second (Feb. 4, 2000); Static Random Access
Department discovered dozens of supplemental section A, B, and C Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan:
serious deficiencies in all three of these questionnaire at page 13. Final Determination of Sales at Less
responses. Therefore the Department It appears that Paramount has than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909 (Feb. 23,
sent a supplemental section A, B, and C selectively reported certain transactions 1998).
questionnaire to Paramount on August instead of reporting all of its sales in the
5, 2005. Paramount submitted its If the Department finds that an
home market as it was repeatedly
response to the first supplemental interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate
instructed to do. Hence Paramount has
section A, B, and C questionnaire on withheld information requested by the by not acting to the best of its ability to
September 7, 2005. More than half of Department, has failed to provide such comply with a request for information,’’
the questions were unanswered. Of information by the deadlines for the Department may use information
those questions to which Paramount did submission of the information, has that is adverse to the interests of the
make some response, the Department failed to provide such information in party as the facts otherwise available.
again found that the majority were form and manner requested, and has See section 776(b) of the Tariff Act.
deficient. The Department accordingly significantly impeded this proceeding. Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to
issued on November 8, 2005, a second With regard to the limited remainder of ensure that the party does not obtain a
supplemental section A, B, and C the information conveyed in more favorable result by failing to
questionnaire. Paramount submitted its Paramount’s three sets of responses, the cooperate than if it had cooperated
response on November 29, 2005; this deficiencies are so prevalent and on fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative
response was deficient as well. such a scale that very little of the Action (SAA) accompanying the
Each of the questionnaires sent by the submitted data can be trusted as Uruguay Round Agreement Act, H.R.
Department contained a warning that reliable. (For examples, see Doc. No. 103–316 (1994), at 870. Under
determinations on the basis of adverse Corroboration Memorandum at pages 3 the statutory scheme, such adverse
facts available would be made if to 4.) We find that Paramount has failed inferences may include reliance on:
Paramount failed to comply. See to cooperate by not acting to the best of information derived from (1) the
‘‘Preliminary Results in the its ability to comply with this request petition; (2) a final determination in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative for information from the Department. investigation; (3) any previous review or
Review of Stainless Steel Flanges from (For discussion of the ‘‘acting to the best determination; or (4) any other
India: Total Adverse Facts Available of its ability’’ standard under section information placed on the record. See
and Corroboration Memorandum for 776(b) of the Tariff Act, please see section 776(b) of the Tariff Act. The
Company Rate,’’ February 28, 2006 Corroboration Memorandum at pages 5– SAA authorizes the Department to
(Corroboration Memorandum) at pages 1 6.) consider the extent to which a party
and 2. The Department preliminarily may benefit from its own lack of
Paramount made one sale of subject determines that Paramount’s cooperation. Id. The Department’s
flanges to the United States during the questionnaire responses cannot serve as practice when selecting an adverse rate
POR. Paramount reported that there the basis for the calculation of from among the possible sources of
were sales in the home market in its Paramount’s margin. In the instant information is to ensure that the margin
original response to the section A and review, Paramount did not contend that is sufficiently adverse to induce the
B questionnaires. In reporting the sales it did not have pertinent records; rather, respondents to provide the Department
quantity and value of its home market it admitted to furnishing only with complete and accurate information
sales (see pages A–2 and A–19) ‘‘samples.’’ By declining to provide the in a timely manner. See Notice of Final
Paramount reported a figure which was requested information, Paramount failed Determination of Sales of Less Than
widely divergent from what was to cooperate to the best of its ability in Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

reported in its databases accompanying that it did not put forth its maximum Circumstances: Carbon and Certain
the supplemental section B efforts to obtain the requested Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR
questionnaire responses of September 7, information from its records. 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002). Because
2005, and November 29, 2005. After Consequently, the Department finds that Paramount currently has the ‘‘All
extensive questioning by the an adverse inference is warranted in Others’’ cash deposit rate of 162.14

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1
11382 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices

percent, the Department determines that (the Department disregarded the highest spouse, ancestors, and lineal
assigning the highest margin from the dumping margin as best information descendants. . . .’’ See section
original petition and investigation in available because the margin was based 771(33)(A) of the Tariff Act). The record
this case, 210.00 percent, will prevent on another company’s uncharacteristic shows the board members (and
Paramount from benefitting from its business expense resulting in an managers) of Echjay Industries and
failure to cooperate with the unusually high margin). Further, in Echjay are descendants of a common
Department’s requests for information. accordance with F. LII De Cecco Di progenitor, the late Harilal Jechand
See Amended Final Determination. Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A. v. United Doshi. They are related as the uncle and
Furthermore, a lower rate would States, 216 F. 3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. June 16, nephews (and as first cousins).
effectively reward Paramount for not 2000), we also examine whether Accordingly, consistent with the
cooperating by not acting to the best of information on the record would definition of ‘‘family’’ under section
its ability. support the selected rates as reasonable 771(33)(A) of the Tariff Act, the
To assess the reliability of the petition facts available. Department’s prior practice, and the
margin in accordance with section The Department finds the 210 percent controlling precedent, (see Ferro Union
776(c) of the Tariff Act, to the extent rate used in these preliminary results Inc. v. Wheatland Tube Co., 44 F. Supp.
practicable, we examined the key has probative value. (Note: The 2d 1310, 1324 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999)
elements of the calculations of export consideration of the probative value (Ferro Union Inc.)), the Department
price and normal value upon which the relies upon information which is preliminarily determines that the board
margins in the petition were based. (For business proprietary and covered by an members and managers of Echjay
discussion of ‘‘reliance on secondary Administrative Protection Order; for a Industries and those of Echjay constitute
information,’’ standard under section full discussion, see Corroboration the Doshi family. See Memorandum on
776(c) of the Tariff Act, please see Memorandum under the heading Relationship of Echjay Forgings (Echjay)
Corroboration Memorandum at pages 7– ‘‘Specifics on Corroboration of Rate and Echjay Industries in the 2004–2005
8.) The U.S. prices in the petition were from Investigation.’’) The Department is Administrative Review of AD Order on
based upon quotes to U.S. customers, not aware of any circumstances which Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges
most of which were obtained through would render this rate inappropriate. In From India, dated February 28, 2006,
market research. See Petition for the fact, other Indian manufacturers which accompanies this notice
Imposition of Antidumping Duties, currently have a 210 percent margin (Affiliation Memorandum).
December 29, 1993. The Department under this order. Section 771(33)(F) of the Tariff Act
was able to corroborate the U.S. prices The implementing regulation for defines affiliates as ‘‘[t]wo or more
in the petition, which were used as the section 776 of the Tariff Act, codified at persons directly or indirectly
basis of the 210.00 percent rate (based 19 CFR 351.308(d), states, ‘‘[t]he fact controlling, controlled by, or under
on the highest rate in the original that corroboration may not be common control with, any person.’’ The
petition and antidumping duty order) by practicable in a given circumstance will statutory definition states that ‘‘control’’
comparing these prices to publicly not prevent the Secretary from applying exists where one person ‘‘is legally or
available information based on IM–145 an adverse inference as appropriate and operationally in a position to exercise
import statistics from the U.S. using the secondary information in restraint or direction over the other
International Trade Commission’s Web question.’’ Additionally, the SAA at 870 person.’’ The record shows the Doshi
site via Dataweb for HTS numbers states specifically that, where family controls the boards of directors of
7307215000 and 7307211000. The ‘‘corroboration may not be practicable in Echjay and Echjay Industries because
weighted average reported CBP unit a given circumstance,’’ the Department these boards comprise the members of
value for these products in calendar may nevertheless apply an adverse the Doshi family. Accordingly, the
year 2004, which overlaps eleven inference. The SAA at 869 emphasizes Doshi family is legally and operationally
months of the POR, was $4.83/kg. This that the Department need not prove that in a position to exercise restraint or
value approximates those cited in the the facts available are the best direction over both Echjay and Echjay
petition, which ranged from $4.77 to alternative information. Therefore,
Industries. Based on the particular facts
$47.32, thus corroborating the petition’s of this case, we preliminarily find there
based on the Department’s efforts
U.S. price. The NVs in the petition were is sufficient evidence of the record to
described above to corroborate
based on actual price quotations find Echjay and Echjay Industries
information contained in the petition,
obtained through market research. At affiliated by virtue of common control of
and in accordance with 776(c) of the
present, the Department is not aware of the Doshi family. See sections
Tariff Act which discusses facts
other independent sources of 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Tariff Act. See
available and corroboration, the
information at its disposal which would also Affiliation Memorandum.
Department considers the margins in the
enable it to corroborate the margin
petition to be corroborated to the extent Collapsing
calculations in the petition further.
With respect to the relevance aspect practicable for purposes of this Section 351.401(f)(1) of the
of corroboration, the Department will preliminary determination. See Certain Department’s regulations states that in
consider information reasonably at its Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from an antidumping proceeding the
disposal as to whether there are Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Department ‘‘will treat two or more
circumstances which would render a Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 76, affiliated producers as a single entity
margin not relevant. Where 84 (January 4, 1999). where those producers have production
circumstances indicate that the selected Echjay facilities for similar or identical
margin is not appropriate as adverse products that would not require
facts available, the Department will Affiliation substantial retooling of either facility in
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

disregard the margin and determine an Pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the order to restructure manufacturing
appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Tariff Act, the following persons, among priorities and the Secretary concludes
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of others, are affiliated: ‘‘members of a that there is a significant potential for
Antidumping Duty Administrative family, including brothers and sisters the manipulation of price or
Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996) (whether by the whole or half blood), production.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices 11383

Section 351.401(f)(2) of the satisfied, the Department has Normal Value Comparisons
Department’s regulations identifies preliminarily determined not to collapse To determine whether sales of subject
factors to be considered to determine Echjay and Echjay Industries in this merchandise to the United States by
whether there is a significant potential segment of the proceeding pursuant to Echjay were made at less than NV, we
for manipulation. These include: (i) the section 351.401(f)(1)(2) of the compared the export price (EP) or
level of common ownership; (ii) the Department’s regulations. See constructed export price (CEP), as
extent to which managerial employees Affiliation Memorandum.
appropriate, to the NV (as described in
or board members of one firm sit on the
Universe of Sales the ‘‘Export Price and Constructed
board of directors of an affiliated firm;
The universe of U.S. sales reported to Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
and (iii) whether operations are
the Department includes constructed sections of this notice, below.) In
intertwined, such as through the sharing
export price (CEP) sales with entry dates accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of
of sales information, involvement in
outside of the POR. Consistent with the the Tariff Act, the Department
production and pricing decisions, the
Department’s practice and the calculated monthly weighted–average
sharing of facilities or employees, or
antidumping duty questionnaire, the prices for NV and compared these to the
significant transactions between the
Department bases its analysis on ‘‘each prices of individual EP or CEP
affiliated producers.
As discussed above and in the U.S. sale of merchandise entered for transactions.
accompanying Affiliation consumption during the POR, except ... Product Comparisons
Memorandum, based on the evidence on for CEP sales made after importation’’
the record in this review, we have where the Department will base its In accordance with section 771(16) of
preliminarily determined that Echjay is analysis on ‘‘each transaction that has a the Tariff Act, the Department
affiliated with Echjay Industries by date of sale within the POR.’’ See considered all products described by the
virtue of common control by the Doshi Department’s questionnaire issued to Scope of the Order section, above,
family. See sections 771(33)(A) and (F) Echjay, dated March 31, 2005, at C–1; produced and sold by Echjay in the
of the Tariff Act. Accordingly, the see also Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon home market to be foreign like products
Department preliminarily determines Steel Flat Products from the for purposes of determining appropriate
that the first of the three requirements Netherlands and the accompanying comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there
for collapsing the companies has been unpublished Issues and Decisions were no sales of identical merchandise
met. Memorandum at comment 10, 69 FR in the home market to compare to U.S.
Having determined that the two 33630 (June 16, 2004); see also Circular sales, we compared U.S. sales to the
companies are affiliated, the Department Welded Non–Alloy Steel Pipe from the next most similar foreign like product
examines whether the producers have Republic of Korea, 63 FR 39071 (July 21, on the basis of the characteristics and
production facilities for similar or 1998). Because all sales made by Echjay reporting instructions listed in the
identical products that would not to the United States are back–to-back Department’s questionnaire. Where
require ‘‘substantial retooling ... in order CEP sales (i.e., the sales were made prior there were no sales of identical or
to restructure manufacturing priorities.’’ to importation and the merchandise was similar merchandise in the home market
See Notice of Preliminary Results of shipped directly to unaffiliated suitable for comparing to U.S. sales, the
New Shipper Review of the customers in the United States), the Department compared these sales to
Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Department will only use entries of constructed value (CV), pursuant to
Pasta From Italy, 69 FR 319 (January 5, subject merchandise made during the section 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Tariff
2004). Based on Echjay’s questionnaire POR. Because a small number of these Act.
responses, the Department has sales were examined last year, the Export Price and Constructed Export
preliminarily determined that the two Department has excluded those sales Price
companies’ production facilities would which were entered in this POR but
require substantial retooling to reviewed in the last POR. See Analysis In accordance with section 772(a) of
restructure manufacturing priorities. See Memorandum, dated February 28, 2006, the Tariff Act, EP is defined as the price
Affiliation Memorandum. which accompanies this notice for more at which the subject merchandise is first
Further, based on the record of this details (Analysis Memorandum). sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
proceeding, the Department date of importation by the producer or
preliminarily determines that significant Date of Sale exporter of the subject merchandise
potential for manipulation does not In determining the appropriate date of outside of the United States to an
exist. The third factor of the sale, the Department normally uses the unaffiliated purchaser in the United
Department’s collapsing analysis, i.e., date of invoice as the date of sale. See States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser
the significant potential for 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube for exportation to the United States, as
manipulation, requires consideration of and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 adjusted under section 772(c) of the
three sub–factors: (1) the level of F. Supp. 2d 1087 (CIT 2001). Moreover, Tariff Act. In accordance with section
common ownership; (2) the extent to the preamble to the Department’s 772(b) of the Tariff Act, CEP is the price
which managerial employees or regulations expresses a strong at which the subject merchandise is first
directors of one firm also sit on the preference for the Department to choose sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United
board of the other firm; and (3) whether a single date of sale across the full States before or after the date of
operations are intertwined. See 19 period of review. See Antidumping importation by or for the account of the
C.F.R. 351.401(f)(2). The Department Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final producer or exporter of such
preliminarily determines that none of Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, merchandise or by a seller affiliated
these factors have been satisfied in this 1997). For these preliminary results, the with the producer or exporter, to a
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

segment of the proceeding. See Department will use the invoice date as purchaser not affiliated with the
Affiliation Memorandum for a full the appropriate date of sale for the POR, producer or exporter, as adjusted under
discussion of the issues. because this date best represents the subsections (c) and (d).
Because two of the three factors in the date upon which the material terms of Based on the record evidence, the
collapsing analysis have not been sale are set. Department preliminarily determines

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1
11384 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices

that Echjay’s U.S. sales, all of which produced and sold steel.’’ Id. Echjay 773(a)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act; see also 19
were through its U.S. affiliate Echjay contends it ‘‘sold’’ all of its DEPB CFR 351.404(b)(2). Therefore, the
U.S.A., Inc., were made in the United certificates for which it was claiming a Department based NV on home market
States within the meaning of section duty drawback adjustment. See Echjay’s sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in
772(b) of the Tariff Act and thus are August 30, 2005, Supplemental the usual quantities and in the ordinary
properly classified as CEP sales. Response at page 23. Echjay did not course of trade.
The Department calculated CEP based provide the Department with any The Department based its
on the prices charged to the first documents supporting its contention. comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales
unaffiliated customer in the United The Department finds that Echjay has to the volume of home market and third
States. The Department based CEP on not provided substantial evidence on country sales on reported stainless steel
the packed C&F, CIF duty paid, FOB, or the record to meet the requirement of flange weight, rather than on number of
ex–dock duty paid prices to the first the first prong of the two–prong test, to pieces. The record demonstrates that
unaffiliated purchasers in the United wit, to establish the necessary link there can be large differences between
States. The Department made between the import duty and the the weight (and corresponding cost and
deductions for movement expenses in reported rebate for duty drawback. Even price) of stainless steel flanges based on
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of if Echjay provided evidence relative sizes, so comparisons of
the Tariff Act, including foreign inland demonstrating that it received duty aggregate data would be distorted for
freight, foreign brokerage and handling, drawback in the form of certificates these products if volume comparisons
ocean freight, and marine insurance as issued by the Government of India, were based on the number of pieces.
required. The Department also deducted Echjay has failed to establish the
Price-to-Price Comparisons
those selling expenses incurred in necessary direct link between the
selling the subject merchandise in the import duty paid and the rebate given The statue requires the Department to
United States, including direct selling by the Government of India. Echjay’s determine whether subject merchandise
expenses (e.g., bank commissions and response suggests that much of the is being, or is likely to be, sold at less
charges, documentation fees, etc.), and DEPB certificate program has no bearing than fair value by making a fair
imputed credit. In accordance with on home market import duties of any comparison between the EP or CEP and
section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act, the kind. Finally, the Department notes the NV. For Echjay, the Department
Department deducted an amount for value of the DEPB certificates is compared U.S. sales with
profit allocated to the expenses normally calculated based upon the contemporaneous sales of the foreign
deducted pursuant to sections 772(d)(1) FOB prices of the finished goods, as like product in India. As noted, the
and (2) of the Tariff Act. See Analysis exported. All of these factors Department considered stainless steel
Memorandum for more details. demonstrate that there is no direct link flanges identical based on the following
between these certificates, the five criteria: grade; type; size; pressure
Duty Drawback rating; and finish. The Department used
company’s own imports of inputs, and
Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act the eventual production of finished a 20 percent difference–in-merchandise
provides that EP or CEP shall be goods for export. Therefore, the (difmer) cost deviation cap as the
increased by ‘‘the amount of any import Department is denying a duty drawback maximum difference in cost allowable
duties imposed by the country of credit for the preliminary results of this for similar merchandise, which we
exportation which have been rebated, or review. calculated as the absolute value of the
which have not been collected, by difference between the U.S. and
reason of the exportation of the subject Normal Value comparison market variable costs of
merchandise to the United States.’’ The In determining NV, the statute manufacturing divided by the total cost
Department determines that an requires the Department to determine of manufacturing of the U.S. product.
adjustment to U.S. price for claimed the price at which the foreign like The Department made adjustments for
duty drawback is appropriate when a product is first sold (or, in the absence differences in packing costs between the
company can demonstrate that there is of a sale, offered for sale) for two markets and for movement
(i) a sufficient link between the import consumption in the exporting country expenses in accordance with sections
duty and the rebate, and (ii) sufficient in the usual commercial quantities and 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act.
imports of the imported material inputs in the ordinary course of trade and, to The Department adjusted for differences
to account for the duty drawback the extent practicable, at the same level in the circumstances of sale (COS)
received for the export of the of trade as the export price or pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of
manufactured product (the so–called constructed export price. In order to the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410.
‘‘two–prong test’’). See Rajinder Pipes, determine whether there is sufficient Finally, the Department made
Ltd. v. United States, 70 F. Supp. 2d volume of sales in the home market to adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR
1350, 1358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1999). serve as a viable basis for calculating NV 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses
Echjay claimed it received Duty (i.e., the aggregate volume of home incurred in the home market or United
Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) market sales of the foreign like product States where commissions were granted
certificates from the Indian government during the POR is equal to or greater on sales in one market but not in the
which it books in an ‘‘Export Incentives than five percent of the aggregate other (the ‘‘commission offset’’).
Ledger.’’ See Echjay’s Section C volume of U.S. sales of subject
Response at Annexure H. According to merchandise during the POR), the Constructed Value
Echjay, these DEPB certificates, awarded Department compared the volume of In accordance with section 773(a)(4)
based on the FOB value of the shipment, home market sales of the foreign like of the Tariff Act, the Department based
are intended to offset import duties on product to the volume of U.S. sales of NV on CV if the Department was unable
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

raw materials ‘‘and also to nullify the the subject merchandise. The to find a contemporaneous comparison
incidence of interest rates higher than Department found no reason to market match for the U.S. sale. The
international rates, high indigenous cost determine that quantity was not the Department calculated CV based on the
of electricity and fuels, and local taxes appropriate basis for these comparisons, cost of materials and fabrication
which are built into the cost of locally so value was not used. See section employed in producing the subject

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices 11385

merchandise, SG&A, and profit. In and home market sales, including a in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales,
accordance with 772(e)(2)(A) of the description of the selling activities in as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank
Tariff Act, the Department based SG&A the respective markets. In identifying of the United States.
expenses and profit on the amounts levels of trade for CEP, the Department
Preliminary Results of Review
incurred and realized by the respondent considered only the selling activities
in connection with the production and reflected in the price after the deduction As a result of our review the
sale of the foreign like product in the of expenses and profit under section Department preliminarily finds the
ordinary course of trade for 772(d) of the Tariff Act. See Micron following weighted–average dumping
consumption in the foreign country. For Technology v. United States, 243 F.3d margins exist for the period February 1,
selling expenses, the Department used 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, 2004, through January 31, 2005:
the weighted–average comparison if the reported levels of trade are the
market selling expenses. Where same in the home and U.S. markets, the Manufacturer / Exporter Margin (percent)
appropriate, the Department made COS functions and activities of the seller
adjustments to CV in accordance with should be similar. Conversely, if a party Echjay Forgings, Ltd ......... 0.38
Paramount Forge .............. 210.00
section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act and 19 reports differences in levels of trade, the
CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, functions and activities should be
The Department will disclose
the Department made COS adjustments dissimilar.
Echjay reported one channel of calculations performed within five days
by deducting home market direct selling
distribution and one LOT in the home of the date of publication of this notice
expenses and adding U.S. direct selling
market, contending that home market in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
expenses.
sales to distributors and wholesalers An interested party may request a
Level of Trade were made at the same level of trade hearing within 30 days of publication of
In accordance with section and involved the same selling activities. the preliminary results. See CFR
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to the See Echjay’s Section A Response at 13– 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
extent practicable, the Department 15. In fact, all merchandise was sold in will be held 37 days after the date of
determines NV based on sales in the the home market on ex works terms. publication, or the first business day
home market at the same level of trade See, e.g., Echjay’s Section B Response at thereafter, unless the Department alters
(LOT) as EP or the CEP. The NV LOT 7. After examining the record evidence the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d).
is that of the starting–price sales in the provided, the Department preliminarily Interested parties may submit case
home market or, when NV is based on determines that for Echjay, a single LOT briefs or written comments no later than
CV, that of the sales from which we exists in the home market. 30 days after the date of publication of
derive SG&A expenses and profit. For As to CEP sales, in Echjay’s Section A these preliminary results of review.
CEP it is the level of the constructed Response it indicated that its U.S. Pursuant to 19 CFR 309(d), rebuttal
sale from the exporter to an affiliated subsidiary, Echjay USA, Inc., performed briefs and rebuttals to written
importer after the deductions required no selling activities or services beyond comments, limited to issues raised in
under section 772(d) of the Tariff Act. notifying the final customer of the the case briefs and comments, may be
To determine whether NV sales are at merchandise’s arrival at the U.S. port; filed no later than 5 days after the time
a different LOT than EP or CEP, the customers were responsible for limit for filing the case briefs. Parties
Department examines stages in the arranging shipment and CBP clearance who submit argument in these
marketing process and selling functions at their own expense. See Echjay’s proceedings are requested to submit
along the chain of distribution between Section A Response at 7. Echjay further with the argument: (1) a statement of the
the producer and the unaffiliated asserts that selling activities remain the issue; (2) a brief summary of the
customer. If the comparison–market same regardless of customer or argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
sales are at a different LOT and the geographical location. See Echjay’s Further, the Department requests parties
difference affects price comparability, as Section A Response at 17. submitting written comments to provide
manifested in a pattern of consistent The record evidence supports a the Department with an additional copy
price differences between the sales on finding that in both markets and in all of the public version of any such
which NV is based and comparison– channels of distribution, Echjay comments on diskette. The Department
market sales at the LOT of the export performs essentially the same level of will issue final results of this
transaction, the Department makes a services. These include order administrative review, including the
LOT adjustment under section processing, packing, shipping and results of our analysis of the issues
773(a)(7)(A) of the Tariff Act. Finally, invoicing of sales, and processing of raised in any such written comments or
for CEP sales, if the NV level is more payments. Based on our analysis of the at a hearing, within 120 days of
remote from the factory than the CEP selling functions performed on CEP publication of these preliminary results.
level and there is no basis for sales in the United States and of sales Assessment Rates
determining whether the difference in in the home market, the Department
the levels between NV and CEP affects determines that the CEP and the starting Upon issuance of the final results of
price comparability, the Department price of home market sales represent the this review, the Department shall
adjusts NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of same stage in the marketing process and determine, and CBP shall assess,
the Tariff Act (the CEP–offset are thus at the same LOT. Accordingly, antidumping duties on all appropriate
provision). See Final Determination of the Department preliminarily finds that entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain no level of trade adjustment or CEP 351.212(b)(1), the Department has
Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from offset is appropriate for Echjay. calculated importer–specific ad valorem
South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732–33 assessment rates based on the total
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

(November 19, 1997). Currency Conversions amount of antidumping duties


In implementing these principles in The Department made currency calculated for the examined sales made
this review, the Department obtained conversions into U.S. dollars in during the POR divided by the total
information from Echjay about the accordance with section 773(a) of the entered value, or quantity (in
marketing stages involved in its U.S. Tariff Act, based on the exchange rates kilograms), as appropriate, of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1
11386 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / Notices

examined sales. Upon completion of 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act Extension of Time Limits for
this review, where the assessment rate and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Preliminary Results
is above de minimis (i.e., at or above Dated: February 28, 2006. The Department requires additional
0.50 percent) the Department will David M. Spooner, time to review, analyze, and verify the
instruct CBP to assess duties on all sales and cost information submitted by
Assistant Secretary for Import
entries of subject merchandise by that Administration. the parties in this administrative review.
importer. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). Moreover, the Department requires
[FR Doc. E6–3173 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
Cash Deposit Requirements BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S additional time to analyze complex
issues related to produce and supplier
The following deposit requirements relationships, issues additional
will be effective upon completion of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE supplemental questionnaires and fully
final results of this administrative analyze the responses. Thus, it is not
review for all shipments of flanges from International Trade Administration practicable to complete this review
India entered, or withdrawn from within the original time limit (i.e., April
warehouse, for consumption on or after [A–337–806] 2, 2006). Therefore, the Department is
the publication date of the final results extending the time limit for completion
of this administrative review, as Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red of the preliminary results to not later
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Raspberries From Chile: Notice of than June 13, 2006, in accordance with
Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for Extension of Time Limit for 2004–2005 section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
the reviewed companies will be the Administration Review We are issuing and publishing this
rates established in the final results of notice in accordance with sections
administrative review; if the rate for a AGENCY: Import Administration, 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
particular company is zero or de International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce Dated: March 06, 2006.
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), no
cash deposit will be required for that Stephen J. Claeys,
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 2006.
company; (2) for manufacturers or Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration.
exporters not covered in this review, but Devta Ohri or Andrew McAllister, AD/
covered in the original less–than-fair– [FR Doc. 06–2140 Filed 3–6–06; 8:45 am]
CVD Operations, Office 1 Import
value investigation or a previous review, Administration, International Trade
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
the cash deposit will continue to be the Administration, U.S. Department of
most recent rate published in the final Commerce, 14 Street and Constitution
determination or final results for which DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
the manufacturer or exporter received a telephone (202) 482–3853 or (202) 482– International Trade Administration
company–specific rate; (3) if the 1174, respectively.
exporter is not a firm covered in this A–427–818
review, a prior review or the original Statutory Time Limits
investigation, but the manufacturer is, Low Enriched Uranium from France:
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
the cash deposit rate will be that Preliminary Results of Antidumping
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
established for the most recent period Duty Administrative Review
requires the Department of Commerce
for that manufacturer of the (‘‘Department’’) to issue the preliminary AGENCY: Import Administration,
merchandise; and (4) if neither the results of an administrative review International Trade Administration,
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm within 245 days after the last day of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
covered in this or any previous reviews, anniversary month of an order for which SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 a review is requested and a final (the Department) is conducting an
percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established determination within 120 days after the administrative review of the
in the LTFV investigation. See date on which the preliminary results antidumping duty order on Low
Amended Final Determination. These are published. If it is not practicable to Enriched Uranium (LEU) from France in
deposit requirements, when imposed, complete the review within the time response to requests by USEC Inc. and
shall remain in effect until publication period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act the United States Enrichment
of the final results of the next allows the Department to extend these Corporation (collectively, petitioners)
administrative review. deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and by Eurodif, S.A.(Eurodif),
Notification to Interested Parties and 180 days, respectively. Compagnie Générale Des Matières
Nucléaires (COGEMA) and COGEMA,
This notice also serves as a Background
Inc. (collectively, Eurodif/COGEMA or
preliminary reminder to importers of On August 29, 2005, the Department the respondent). This review covers
their responsibility under 19 CFR published in the Federal Register a sales of subject merchandise to the
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding notice of initiation of administrative United States during the period
the reimbursement of antidumping review of the antidumping duty order February 1, 2004 through January 31,
duties prior to liquidation of the on individually quick frozen red 2005.
relevant entries during this review raspberries from Chile, covering the We preliminarily determine that U.S.
period. Failure to comply with this period July 1, 2004, through June 30, sales have been made below normal
requirement could result in the 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and value (NV). If these preliminary results
Secretary’s presumption that Countervailing Duty Administrative are adopted in our final results, we will
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

reimbursement of antidumping duties Reviews and Requests for Revocation in instruct U.S. Customs and Border
occurred and the subsequent assessment Part 70 FR 51009 (August 29, 2005). The Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping
of double antidumping duties. preliminary results for this duties based on the difference between
We are issuing and publishing this administration review are currently due the constructed export price (CEP) and
notice in accordance with sections no later than April 2, 2006. the NV. Interested parties are invited to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:39 Mar 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM 07MRN1