[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54335-54336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26210]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-804]
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 4, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on sparklers from the People's Republic of China
(PRC) (60 FR 39931). The review was requested for one manufacturer,
Guangxi Native Produce Import and Export Corporation, Beihai Fireworks
and Firecrackers Branch (Guangxi), of the subject merchandise and the
review period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We received no comments. The final results are
unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
5831/4114.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 18, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on sparklers from the PRC (56 FR 27946). On
June 7, 1994, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register
notifying interested parties of the opportunity to request an
administrative review of sparklers from the PRC (59 FR 29411). On June
23, 1994, the petitioners requested, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(a), that we conduct an administrative review of exports to the
United States by Guangxi, for the period June 1, 1993 through May 31,
1994. We published a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty
administrative review on July 15, 1994 (59 FR 36160). On August 4, 1995
(60 FR 39931), the Department published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on sparklers from the PRC. The Department has now completed
that review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review are sparklers
from the PRC. Sparklers are fireworks, each comprising a cut-to-length
wire, one end of which is coated with a chemical mix that emits bright
sparks while burning.
[[Page 54336]]
Sparklers are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff System
(HTS) subheading 3604.10.00. The HTS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive as to the scope of this proceeding.
Best Information Available
On July 20, 1994, we mailed Guangxi a questionnaire explaining the
review procedures. In addition, a short questionnaire was sent to
Guangxi, the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region People's Government, the
Embassy of the People's Republic of China, the Guangxi Foreign Economic
Relations and Trade Commission and the Guangxi People's Government-
Beijing Office. This questionnaire sought to ascertain whether Guangxi
is entitled to a separate rate by reason of both de jure and de facto
absence of central government control with respect to exports. The
questionnaires, which covered exports to the United States for the
period of review (POR), were due on August 23, 1994. We did not receive
a response from any party by the due date and, thus, asked Skypak
International Express (TNT) to trace the mailing and verify Guangxi's
receipt of the document. On August 3, 1994, TNT's delivery office in
Hong Kong confirmed that the questionnaire was accepted by a
representative of Guangxi on August 2, 1994. Because we received no
response and have not been contacted by Guangxi or any other
respondent, we determine that Guangxi is an uncooperative respondent.
Further, Guangxi is no longer entitled to a separate rate, as absence
of central government control with regard to exports was not
demonstrated. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act,
we are using the best information available (BIA) as the basis for
determining a dumping margin for all entries into the United States of
the subject merchandise during the POR.
In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology whereby the Department normally assigns lower
margins to those respondents who cooperate in a review, and margins
based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents who do not
cooperate in a review.
In accordance with our BIA methodology for uncooperative
respondents, we assign as BIA the higher of: (1) the highest of the
rates found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in
the same country of origin in the less than fair value (LTFV)
investigation or prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate
found in this review for any firm for the same class or kind of
merchandise in the same country of origin (see Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France; et. al. (57 FR
28379, June 24, 1992)).
This methodology has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. the United
States, 996 F.2nd 1185 (CAFC 1993); see also Krupp Stahl Ag. et. al. v.
the United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993).) Given that Guangxi did
not respond to the Department's questionnaires, we find that Guangxi
has not cooperated in this review.
In accordance with our methodology we have used as BIA the highest
rate established in the remand of the LTFV final determination (58 FR
53708, July 29, 1993), the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 percent.
Final Results of the Review
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. We received no comments. The final results are therefore
unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results, and we
determine that a margin of 94.54 percent exists for Guangxi for the
period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash
deposit rate for Guangxi will be the PRC country-wide rate as stated
above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies that
received separate rates not listed above, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be
the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 percent, the rate established on
remand of the LTFV final determination; and (4) the cash deposit rate
for any non-PRC exporter will be the rate established for that firm; if
a non-PRC exporter does not have its own separate rate, the deposit
rate for that firm's shipments will be the rate applicable to the PRC
supplier of that exporter. In all cases, the rate applicable to a firm
normally should change only as a result of a review of that firm,
except in instances of change of ownership.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: October 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-26210 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
