On June 30, 2016, Welbend Corporation and Boltex Mfg. Co., L.P. filed antidumping (AD) petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), regarding finished carbon steel flanges from India, Italy and Spain. The petitioners also filed a countervailing duty (CVD) petition regarding finished carbon steel flanges from India. According to the petitions, a flange is a product for connecting pipes, valves, pumps and other equipment to form a piping system. It also provides easy access for cleaning, inspection or modification. Flanges are usually welded or screwed. Flanged joints are made by bolting together two flanges with a gasket between them to provide a seal.
The U.S. AD law imposes special tariffs to counteract imports that are sold in the United States at less than “normal value.” The U.S. CVD law imposes special tariffs to counteract imports sold in the United States that benefit from unfair foreign government subsidies. For AD and CVD duties to be imposed, the U.S. government must determine not only that dumping and subsidization is occurring, but also that there is “material injury” (or threat thereof) by reason of the dumped and/or subsidized imports. Importers are liable for any potential AD and/or CVD duties imposed. In addition, these investigations could impact purchasers, by either increasing prices, and/or decreasing supply, of finished carbon steel flanges.
The petitioners propose the following scope of investigation:
The scope of this investigation covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, which can include beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, recoining or resizing, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces other than a gasket face, drilling bolt holes and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of these petitions. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of these petitions.
While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME 816.5 or ASME B16.41 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope, regardless of pipe size (usually expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually expressed in pounds of pressure, e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1500, 2500, etc.), type of face (e.g., flat face, full face, raised face, etc.), confìguration (e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap joint, threaded, etc.), wall thickness (usually expressed in inches) and normalization or heat treatment (which may not always be used). The carbon steel used to produce fìnished carbon steel flanges includes, but is not limited to, carbon steel produced to ASTM A105 and ASTM A694 standards.
Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheading 7307 .91.5010 and 7307.91,5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheading 1307.91.5030 and 7301.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Petitioner alleges dumping margins as follows:
The CVD petition alleges that Indian producers/exporters benefit from numerous countervailable subsidies provided by the Government of India. Please let us know if you would like further details regarding specific subsidy allegations.
June 30, 2016 – Petitions are filed July 20, 2016 – DOC initiates AD and CVD investigations July 21, 2016 – ITC staff conference (estimated) August 15, 2016 – Deadline for ITC preliminary injury determination September 23, 2016 – Deadline for DOC preliminary CVD determination, if deadline is NOT postponed November 28, 2016 – Deadline for DOC preliminary CVD determination, if deadline is fully postponed December 7, 2016 – Deadline for DOC preliminary AD determination, if deadline is not postponed January 26, 2017 – Deadline for DOC preliminary AD determination, if deadline is fully postponed June 12, 2017 – Deadline for DOC final AD and CVD determination, if both preliminary and final AD determinations are fully postponed, and the final CVD determination is aligned to coincide with the final AD determination July 27, 2017 – Deadline for ITC final injury determination, assuming fully postponed DOC deadlines
Douglas J. Heffner litigates customs and international trade matters including antidumping duty, countervailing duty and safeguard cases. He represents foreign companies in Canada, Europe, Japan and Mexico, as well as domestic producers in industries that range from high-tech to heavy industry, to consumer and industrial goods. He also represents trade associations, government agencies and embassies in a broad range of matters.
Richard P. Ferrin advises clients about international trade regulations, particularly antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at both the administrative and appellate levels. He advocates for his client in global “safeguards” proceedings and on customs matters involving classification issues and country-of-origin determinations. Richard has represented foreign manufacturers, foreign exporters, and U.S. importers in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and in judicial review of...
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.