Notice2024-12738
Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination of No Shipments; 2021-2022
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 11, 2024
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Qingdao Bestflow Industrial Co., Ltd. (Bestflow), the sole participating mandatory respondent in this review and an exporter of forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China), and Both-Well Taizhou Steel Fittings Co., Ltd. (Both-Well), a non- individually-examined exporter of forged steel fittings from China, sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) November 1, 2021, through October 31, 2022. Further, Commerce determines that Xin Yi International Trade Co., Limited (Xin Yi) had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Lastly, Commerce determines that 23 companies for which this review was initiated are not eligible for a separate rate and are, thus, part of the China-wide entity.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49154-49157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-12738]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-067]
Forged Steel Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2021-2022
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that
Qingdao Bestflow Industrial Co., Ltd. (Bestflow), the sole
participating mandatory respondent in this review and an exporter of
forged steel fittings from the People's Republic of China (China), and
Both-Well Taizhou Steel Fittings Co., Ltd. (Both-Well), a non-
individually-examined exporter of forged steel fittings from China,
sold subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal
value (NV) during the period of review (POR) November 1, 2021, through
October 31, 2022. Further, Commerce determines that Xin Yi
International Trade Co., Limited (Xin Yi) had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. Lastly, Commerce determines that 23
companies for which this review was initiated are not eligible for a
separate rate and are, thus, part of the China-wide entity.
DATES: Applicable June 11, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jinny Ahn, AD/CVD Operations, Office
VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0968.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commerce published the Preliminary Results \1\ on December 7, 2023,
and invited interested parties to comment. On March 22, 2024, we
extended the deadline for the final results of this review until June
4, 2024.\2\ For a complete description of the events that occurred
since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Forged Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2021-2022, 88 FR
85221 (December 7, 2023) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying
Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM).
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Extension of Deadline for Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' dated March 22, 2024.
\3\ See Memorandum, ``Decision Memorandum for the Final Results
of the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Forged
Steel Fittings from the People's Republic of China; 2021-2022,''
dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Issues
and Decision Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order <SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Forged Steel Fittings from Italy and the People's
Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 83 FR 60397, dated
November 26, 2018 (Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise covered by the Order is forged steel fittings from
China. Subject carbon and alloy forged steel fittings are normally
entered under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings 7307.99.1000, 7307.99.3000, 7307.99.5045, and 7307.99.5060.
They also may be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.92.3010,
7307.92.3030, 7307.92.9000, and 7326.19.0010. The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description
of the scope is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of
the Order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the parties' briefs are addressed in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed is
included as Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via
Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to
registered users at <a href="https://access.trade.gov">https://access.trade.gov</a>. In addition, a complete
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed
[[Page 49155]]
directly at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx">https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx</a>.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our review of the record and comments received from
interested parties regarding the Preliminary Results, we made certain
revisions to the margin calculations for Bestflow.\5\ Further, we have
assigned Bestflow's revised final weighted-average dumping margin to
the non-examined separate rate respondent, Both-Well. For a discussion
of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum, ``Final Results Calculation Memorandum for
Both-Well,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination of No Shipments
In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that Xin Yi
had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.\6\ No party filed comments with respect to this preliminary
determination and we received no information to contradict the
preliminary finding. Therefore, we continue to find that Xin Yi had no
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and will issue
appropriate liquidation instructions that are consistent with our
``automatic assessment'' clarification for these final results.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Preliminary Results, 88 FR at 85222.
\7\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (Assessment
Practice Refinement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate
In our Preliminary Results, we determined that Bestflow and Both-
Well demonstrated their eligibility for separate rates.\8\ We received
no arguments since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provide
a basis for reconsideration of these determinations. Therefore, for
these final results, we continue to find that the two companies listed
in the table in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice
are each eligible for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Preliminary Results PDM at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The China-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Results, Commerce found that 23 companies for
which a review was initiated did not establish their eligibility for a
separate rate.\9\ No parties contested this finding. As such, we
continue to determine these 23 companies identified in Appendix II are
part of the China-wide entity. Because no party requested a review of
the China-wide entity, and Commerce no longer considers the China-wide
entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative
reviews,\10\ we did not conduct a review of the China-wide entity.
Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity
rate (i.e., 142.72 percent) is not subject to change.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 9.
\10\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November
4, 2013).
\11\ See Order, 83 FR at 60397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Examined Separate Rate Respondent
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what
weighted-average dumping margin to apply to companies not selected for
individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act). Generally, Commerce looks to section
735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the
all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the
weighted-average dumping margin for respondents that are not
individually examined in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A)
of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by
averaging the weighted-average dumping margins determined for
individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on facts available.
In the Preliminary Results,\12\ and consistent with Commerce's
practice,\13\ we assigned the non-examined, separate rate company
(i.e., Both-Well) a weighted-average dumping margin equal to the
calculated weighted-average dumping margin for the mandatory respondent
whose rate was not zero, de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), or
based entirely on facts available (i.e., the weighted-average dumping
margin for Bestflow). Both-Well and the Bonney Forge Corporation, a
domestic interested party, commented on the methodology for calculating
this separate rate. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
For the final results, we continue to apply this approach and assign
Both-Well the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Bestflow
which is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, as
it is consistent with the intent of, and our use of, section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Preliminary Results PDM at 9.
\13\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656, 36660 (July 24, 2009).
\14\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 56158, 56160
(September 12, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period November 1, 2021, through October 31,
2022:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter dumping margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Bestflow Industrial Co., Ltd.................... 118.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review-Specific Rate Applicable to the Following Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both-Well (Taizhou) Steel Fittings Co., Ltd............. 118.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We intend to disclose the calculations performed in connection with
these final results to interested parties in this review under an
administrative protective order (APO) within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register in accordance with
19 CFR 351.224(b).
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by
this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP
no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final
results of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is
filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment
instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until
the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has
expired (i.e., within 90 days of publication).
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review, when the company-specific
weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent), or when the importer-specific assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this review is not zero or de
minimis.\15\ Where either a company's weighted-average dumping margin
is zero or de
[[Page 49156]]
minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Bestflow, which has a final weighted-average dumping margin
that is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent), we will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the time of liquidation,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).\16\ Because Bestflow did not
report entered value for its U.S. sales, we intend to calculate
importer- or customer-specific per-unit assessment rates by dividing
the total amount of dumping calculated for all reviewed sales to the
importer or customer by the total quantity of the same sales. Commerce
will also calculate (estimated) ad valorem importer- or customer-
specific assessment rates with which to assess whether the per-unit
assessment rates are de minimis. We intend to calculate estimated
importer- (or customer-specific ad valorem assessment rates by dividing
the total amount of dumping calculated for all reviewed U.S. sales to
the importer or customer by the total estimated entered value of the
same sales.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Commerce will apply the assessment rate calculation method
adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).
\17\ See 19 CFR 351.212 (b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the respondent that was not selected for individual examination
in this administrative review, and which qualified for a separate rate
(i.e., Both-Well), the assessment rate will be equal to the weighted-
average dumping margin from the final results (i.e., 118.97 percent).
For the companies who are not eligible for a separate rate, and, thus,
are part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad
valorem assessment rate of 142.72 percent to all POR entries of subject
merchandise which was exported by those companies.
Pursuant to a refinement in our non-market economy practice, for
sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by
Bestflow during this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries
associated with those sales at the rate for the China-wide entity.\18\
Additionally, any suspended entries that entered under Xin Yi's case
number (i.e., at Xin Yi's cash deposit rate) will be liquidated at the
antidumping duty assessment rate for the China-wide entity.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Assessment Practice Refinement, 76 FR at 65694 for a
full discussion of this practice.
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for
shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for companies listed
in the table above, the cash deposit rate will be 118.97 percent; (2)
for previously examined Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed
above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to
be the exporter's existing cash deposit rate; (3) for all Chinese
exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be
entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for
the China-wide entity (i.e., 142.72 percent); and (4) for all non-
Chinese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their
own separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to
the Chinese exporter that supplied that non-Chinese exporter. These
cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure
to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred
and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an
increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the
countervailing duties.
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO
of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or
conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure
to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation
subject to sanction.
Notification to Interested Parties
These final results and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.213(h) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: June 4, 2024.
Ryan Majerus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix I
List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
V. Discussion of the Issues
Comment 1: Whether Commerce Used the Latest Revised U.S. Sales
Database for the Calculation of Bestflow's Weighted-Average Dumping
Margin
Comment 2: Inland Freight Surrogate Value (SV)
Comment 3: Calculation of Labor SV Covering Multiple Years of
the POR
Comment 4: Whether to Continue to Apply Partial Adverse Facts
Available (AFA) to Determine the Normal Value (NV) for the Sales of
Merchandise Supplied by Bestflow's Uncooperative Suppliers
Comment 5: Whether to Continue to Assign Bestflow's Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin to Both-Well
VI. Recommendation
Appendix II
Companies Not Eligible for a Separate Rate and Treated as Part of the
China-Wide Entity
1. Cixi Baicheng Hardware Tools, Ltd.
2. Dalian Guangming Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
3. Eaton Hydraulics (Luzhou) Co., Ltd.
4. Eaton Hydraulics (Ningbo) Co., Ltd.
5. Jiangsu Forged Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
6. Jiangsu Haida Pipe Fittings Group Co.
7. Jinan Mech Piping Technology Co., Ltd.
8. Jining Dingguan Precision Parts Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
9. Lianfa Stainless Steel Pipes & Valves (Qingyun) Co., Ltd.
10. Luzhou City Chengrun Mechanics Co., Ltd.
11. Ningbo HongTe Industrial Co., Ltd.
12. Ningbo Long Teng Metal Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
13. Ningbo Save Technology Co., Ltd.
14. Ningbo Zhongan Forging Co., Ltd.
15. Q.C. Witness International Co., Ltd.
16. Shanghai Lon Au Stainless Steel Materials Co., Ltd.
17. Witness International Co., Ltd.
18. Yancheng Boyue Tube Co., Ltd.
19. Yancheng Haohui Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
20. Yancheng Jiuwei Pipe Fittings Co., Ltd.
21. Yancheng Manda Pipe Industry Co., Ltd.
22. Yingkou Guangming Pipeline Industry Co., Ltd.
[[Page 49157]]
23. Yuyao Wanlei Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2024-12738 Filed 6-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 11, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.