[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57389-57391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28557]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-501]
Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the People's
Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty
administrative review of natural bristle paint brushes and brush heads
from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle
paint brushes and brush heads (paint brushes) from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) in response to requests by domestic interested
parties, the Paint Applicator Division of the American Brush
Manufacturers Association (PADABMA) and EZ Paintr Corporation (EZ
Paintr). This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United
States during the period February 1, 1995, through January 31, 1996.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping
duties on appropriate entries.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with each
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4733.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping
duty order on paint brushes from the PRC on February 14, 1986 (51 FR
5580). On February 9, 1996, the Department published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 4956) a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on paint brushes
from the PRC covering the period February 1, 1995, through January 31,
1996.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), PADABMA requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of Yixing Sanai Brush
Making Co., Ltd. (Yixing); Eastar B.F. (Thailand) Company Ltd.
(Eastar); Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp. (HACO); China National
Metals & Minerals I/E Corp, Zhenjiang Trading Corp. (Zhenjiang
Trading); China National Native Product and Animal By-Product Import
and Export Corporation (China National); and Inner Mongolia Autonomous
Region Light Industrial Products I/E Corp. EZ Paintr requested that we
conduct an administrative review of HACO. We published a notice of
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on March 19,
1996 (61 FR 11185). The Department is conducting this administrative
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of natural bristle
paint brushes and brush heads from the PRC. The merchandise under
review is currently classifiable under item 9603.40.40.40 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
This review covers the period February 1, 1995, through January 31,
1996.
Separate Rates
To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting
entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,
56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon
Carbide). Under this policy, exporters in non-market-economy (NME)
countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they
can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure)
and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. Evidence supporting,
though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government
control includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any
other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of
companies. De facto absence of government control with respect to
exports is based on four criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are
set by or subject to the approval of a government authority; (2)
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits and
financing of losses; (3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether each
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts. See Silicon
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
In our final results of review of this order for the 1994-1995
review period, the Department determined that HACO warranted a company-
specific dumping margin according to the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads
From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 52917 (October 9, 1996).
Because there is no new evidence on the record to warrant
reconsideration of that issue, we preliminarily determine that HACO
continues to be entitled to a separate rate.
Because Yixing, Eastar, Zhenjiang Trading, China National Native
Produce and Animal By-Products Import-Export Corporation, and Inner
Mongolia Autonomous Region Light Industrial Products I/E Corp. did not
respond to our separate rates questionnaire, we preliminarily determine
that they do not qualify for separate rates.
Non-Shipper
HACO stated that it did not have shipments during the period of
review, and we confirmed this with the United States Customs Service.
Therefore, we
[[Page 57390]]
are treating HACO as a non-shipper for this review. HACO will retain
its rate from the last administrative review.
Facts Available
We preliminarily determine that the use of the facts available is
appropriate for Yixing, Eastar, Zhenjiang Trading, China National, and
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Light Industrial Products I/E Corp.,
because these firms did not respond to the Department's antidumping
questionnaire. Because necessary information is not available on the
record with regard to sales by these firms, as a result of their
withholding the requested information, we must make our preliminary
determination based on facts otherwise available pursuant to section
776(a) of the Act. In addition, the Department finds that, in not
responding to the questionnaire, these five firms failed to cooperate
by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with requests for
information from the Department.
Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act
authorizes the Department to use an inference adverse to the interests
of that respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) of
the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts
available information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record. Because information from prior proceedings
constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) of the Act provides
that the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that
secondary information from independent sources reasonably at its
disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review (60 FR 49567), where the Department disregarded
the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). The Department
has preliminarily determined that no such circumstances exist with
respect to the selected margin, the highest rate from any prior segment
of the proceeding, 351.92 percent.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins
exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp....... 2/1/95-1/31/96 \1\ 351.92
PRC-wide rate........................... 2/1/95-1/31/96 351.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant
segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice,
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. The Department will publish a notice of final results of
this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such comments.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of paint brushes from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For the companies
named above which were not found to have separate rates, as well as for
all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide
rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for any
company found to merit a separate rate for the final results of this
review, the rate will be the company-specific rate for that company
established in the final results of this review; (3) for previously
reviewed non-PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established in the most recent segment of the proceeding; and (4) for
all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of
that exporter.
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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.
[[Page 57391]]
Dated: October 30, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-28557 Filed 11-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
