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 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. For a complete description of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Scope of the 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 https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Separate Rate

In our Preliminary Results, we determined that Bestflow and Both-Well demonstrated their eligibility for separate rates. 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.

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. 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, 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.

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, and consistent with Commerce's practice, 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.

Final Results of Review

Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period November 1, 2021, through October 31, 2022:

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. Where either a company's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de 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.

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). 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.

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. 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.

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).

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.

23. Yuyao Wanlei Pipe Fitting Manufacturing Co., Ltd.