[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 250 (Friday, December 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68232-68237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32871]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-847]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Persulfates From the
People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Darzenta, Barbara Wojcik-
Betancourt, or Howard Smith, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-6320, (202) 482-0629, or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
The 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 Rounds 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).
Preliminary Determination
We determine preliminarily that persulfates from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section
733 of the Act. The estimated margins are shown in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation (61 FR 40817, August 6,
1996), the following events have occurred:
On August 1, 1996, the Department sent a survey to the PRC's
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) requesting
the identification of producers and exporters, information on
production and sales of persulfates exported to the United States, and
identification of the appropriate Chinese Chamber of Commerce. We did
not receive a response to this request from MOFTEC.
On August 26, 1996, the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination
in this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-749). The ITC found that
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States
is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of
persulfates.
The Department issued an antidumping questionnaire 1 to MOFTEC
on August 27, 1996, with instructions to forward the document to all
PRC producers/exporters of persulfates and to inform these companies
that they must respond by the due dates. We also sent courtesy copies
of the antidumping duty questionnaire to the Chinese Chamber of
Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters
Association and to 18 companies whose names and complete addresses had
been identified in the petition. Moreover, on September 5, 1996, we
served the questionnaire, via MOFTEC, on two additional companies not
listed in the petition (i.e., Guangdong Petroleum Chemical Import &
Export Trade Corporation (``Guangdong Petroleum'') and Shanghai Ai Jian
Import & Export Corporation (``AJ'')) which we learned were potential
manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. In addition,
on the same date, we sent copies of the questionnaire directly to both
of these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The questionnaire is divided into four sections. Section A
requests general information concerning a company's corporate
structure and business practices, the merchandise under
investigation that it sells, and the sales of the merchandise in all
of its markets. Sections B and C request home market sales listings
and U.S. sales listings, respectively (section B does not normally
apply in antidumping proceedings involving the PRC). Section D
requests information on the factors of production of the subject
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 17, 1996, the Department requested that interested
parties provide published information (PI) for valuing the factors of
production and for surrogate country selection. We received comments
from interested parties in October 1996.
In September and October 1996, four PRC companies and one U.S.
company submitted responses to section A and/or sections C and D of the
questionnaire. The identities of these companies are: (1) Sinochem
Jiangsu Wuxi Import & Export Co. (``Wuxi''), a Chinese exporter of
subject merchandise; (2) Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Co.,
(``AJ''), a Chinese exporter of subject merchandise; (3) Ai Jian
Reagent Works (``AJ Works''), Wuxi's and AJ's supplier factory; (4) ICC
Chemical Corporation (``ICC''), a U.S. importer and reseller of subject
merchandise which is a privately-owned U.S. company; and (5) Guangzhou
City Zhujian Electrochemical Factory (``Zhujian''), ICC's Chinese
supplier factory.
Also in October 1996, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the
companies noted above. We received responses to these questionnaires
during October and November 1996.
In its questionnaire responses, Zhujian identified Guangdong
Petroleum as its official exporter in China. Yet, ICC, the U.S.
importer of Zhujian produced persulfates,
[[Page 68233]]
responded to Section C of the Department's antidumping questionnaire.
In light of these facts, we concluded that clarification was required
as to whether Guangdong Petroleum or ICC was the appropriate respondent
for U.S. sales reporting purposes. Therefore, on November 4, 1996, we
requested that Zhujian provide information on its U.S. sales via
Guangdong Petroleum. Insofar as Guangdong Petroleum had failed to
respond to our original questionnaire sent to it on September 5, 1996,
we did not issue our request for additional information to Guangdong
Petroleum. Nevertheless, Guangdong Petroleum, rather than Zhujian,
responded to this request on November 25, 1996, by submitting a
response to Section C of our questionnaire.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Guangdong Petroleum never responded to the Department's
Section A questionnaire which was issued to it on September 5, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for the companies identified above, none of the other
companies which were served with a questionnaire responded.
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
In November and December 1996, all participating exporters
requested that, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, in the
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until
not later than 135 days after the publication of the affirmative
preliminary determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with
19 CFR 353.20(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is
affirmative, (2) these respondents account for all of the exports of
the companies that responded to the questionnaire, and (3) we are not
aware of the existence of any compelling reasons for denying the
request, we are granting respondents' requests and are postponing the
final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will
be extended accordingly.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are persulfates,
including ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical
formulae for these persulfates are, respectively,
(NH4)2S2O8, K2S2O8, and
Na2S2O8. Ammonium and potassium persulfates are
currently classified under subheading 2833.40.60 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Sodium persulfate is
classified under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of this investigation (POI) comprises each exporter's
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition
(i.e., January through June 1996).
Nonmarket Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy country
(NME) in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., 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) and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22545 (May
8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol)). Neither respondents nor petitioner has
challenged such treatment. Therefore, in accordance with section
771(18)(C) of the Act, we will continue to treat the PRC as an NME in
this investigation.
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on the NME
producers' factors of production, valued, to the extent possible, in a
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed
under the NV section below.
Surrogate Country
The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
Egypt and Indonesia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of
overall economic development (see Memorandum from David Mueller to
Louis Apple, dated September 12, 1996).
According to the available information on the record, we have
determined that India is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices to
value the PRC producers' factors of production, when available and
where appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon PI wherever
possible.
Separate Rates
Each of the participating respondent exporters, except for
Guangdong Petroleum which did not respond to the Department's section A
questionnaire, has requested a separate, company-specific rate. The
claimed ownership structure of the respondents is as follows: (1) Wuxi
is owned by all the people; (2) AJ is a publicly-held company.
As stated in Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol, ownership of a
company by all the people does not require the application of a single
rate. Accordingly, each of the respondents which reports that it is
owned by all the people or publicly held is eligible for consideration
for a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of 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) and
amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the
Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
Except for Guangdong Petroleum which has failed to respond to the
Department's section A questionnaire, each respondent exporter has
placed on the administrative record a number of documents to
demonstrate absence of de jure control. These documents include laws,
regulations and provisions enacted by the central government of the
PRC, describing the deregulation of Chinese enterprises as well as the
deregulation of the Chinese export trade, but for a list of products
that may be subject to central government export constraints, which the
respondents claim does not involve the subject merchandise.
Specifically, the respondents provided English translations of the law
of the PRC on industrial enterprises ``owned by the people,'' enacted
on April 13, 1988, and the regulations regarding the deregulation of
state owned industrial enterprises, enacted on August 23, 1992. The
articles of the 1988 law and 1992 regulations authorize these companies
to make their own operational and managerial decisions.
In prior cases, the Department has analyzed the laws which the
respondents have submitted in this record and found that they establish
an absence of de jure control. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer
Slides With Rollers From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 54472
(October 24, 1995);
[[Page 68234]]
see also Furfuryl Alcohol. We have no new information in these
proceedings which would cause us to reconsider this determination.
However, as in previous cases, there is some evidence that the PRC
central government enactments have not been implemented uniformly among
different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. (See Silicon Carbide
and Furfuryl Alcohol.) Therefore, the Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by
or subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol).
Except for Guangdong Petroleum which has failed to respond to the
Department's section A questionnaire, each respondent exporter has
asserted the following: (1) it establishes its own EPs; (2) it
negotiates contracts, without guidance from any governmental entities
or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) it
retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its
business needs and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain
loans. In addition, respondents' questionnaire responses indicate that
company-specific pricing during the POI does not suggest coordination
among exporters. This information supports a preliminary finding that
there is a de facto absence of governmental control of the export
functions of these companies.
Consequently, we determine preliminarily that each of the
participating exporters, meets the criteria for application of separate
rates. Guangdong Petroleum, however, did not provide any information on
the issue of de jure or de facto control of its operations. Therefore,
we preliminarily determine that this exporter has not met the criteria
enumerated above for the application of a separate rate. Consequently,
we are applying a China-wide rate to this PRC exporter for purposes of
the preliminary determination. Because Guangdong Petroleum submitted a
response to Section C of the Department's questionnaire in connection
with our request for additional information from Zhujian, and we are
uncertain that Guangdong Petroleum received the full questionnaire
issued to it on September 5, 1996, we intend to send Guangdong
Petroleum a supplemental letter requesting, among other things, that it
provide the information requested in the Department's Section A
questionnaire in order to be considered for a separate rate in the
final determination.
China-Wide Rate
U.S. import statistics indicate that the total quantity and value
of U.S. imports of persulfates from the PRC is greater than the total
quantity and value of persulfates reported by all PRC companies that
submitted responses. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that not all
exporters of PRC persulfates responded to our questionnaire.
Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping deposit rate--the
China-Wide rate--to all exporters in the PRC (other than AJ and Wuxi),
based on our presumption that those respondents who failed to respond
constitute a single enterprise, and are under common control by the PRC
government. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April
30, 1996) (Bicycles).
This China-Wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts
available. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an
interested party or any other person--(A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority . .
. shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available
in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to
the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on
secondary information, including information drawn from the petition.
When multiple companies are treated as a single enterprise, the
enterprise must submit a complete, consolidated response. If it fails
to do so, the Department may base the margin calculation for the
enterprise on the facts available. As discussed above, all PRC
exporters that do not qualify for a separate rate are treated as a
single enterprise. Because some exporters of the single enterprise
failed to respond to the Department's requests for information, that
single enterprise is considered to be uncooperative. Accordingly,
consistent with section 776(b)(1) of the Act, we have applied, as total
facts available, the higher of the average margin from the petition, as
recalculated by the Department based on the corroboration efforts
discussed below, or the highest rate calculated for a respondent in
this proceeding. In the present case, based on our comparison of the
calculated margins for the other respondents in this proceeding to the
recalculated average margin in the petition, we have concluded that the
petition is the most appropriate record information on which to form
the basis for dumping calculations in this investigation. Accordingly,
the Department has based the China-wide rate on information in the
petition. In this case, the recalculated average petition rate is 76.65
percent.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department relies
on ``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at the Department's disposal. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA clarifies that the
petition is ``secondary information.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA also
clarifies that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information
used has probative value. Id. However, where corroboration is not
practicable, the Department may use uncorroborated information.
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the
margins in the petition to the extent practicable. The petitioner based
EPs on price quotes obtained from U.S. importers, reduced by estimated
importer mark-ups and movement charges. We compared the starting prices
used by petitioner less the importer mark-ups against prices derived
from U.S. import statistics and found that the two sets of
[[Page 68235]]
prices are consistent. We also compared the movement charges used in
the petition with the surrogate values used by the Department in its
margin calculations and found them to be consistent.
Regarding normal value, petitioner used publicly available
published information from India to value the factors of production.
Petitioner based factory overhead (FOH), selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) and profit estimates on data from an annual
report of National Peroxide Limited, an Indian producer of hydrogen
peroxide. We compared this financial data against that obtained for
other Indian chemical producers, and found that we could not
corroborate this data. (See also, ``Factors Valuation'' section of this
notice.) Therefore, we recalculated the FOH, SG&A and profit portions
of the petitioner's normal value calculations using data obtained from
the financial statement for Sanderson Industries Ltd. (``Sanderson''),
which we found to be more consistent with that of the other Indian
chemical producers examined.
With respect to all other elements of the normal value calculation
in the petition (i.e., materials, labor, energy and packing), the
Department corroborated the values used in the petition by comparing
them with values obtained from PI collected in this and previous NME
investigations.
Accordingly, we have corroborated, to the extent practicable, the
data contained in the petition. Our recalculation of the FOH, SG&A and
profit portions of the petitioner's margin calculations resulted in
revised average margin rate of 76.65 percent. See Memorandum from the
Team to Louis Apple regarding Factors Valuation for the Preliminary
Determination dated December 18, 1996 (Factors Memorandum); and the
Memorandum from the Team to Louis Apple regarding Corroboration of Data
Contained in the Petition, dated December 18, 1996.
Export Price Issues
Although we have not calculated a separate rate for Guangdong
Petroleum for purposes of this preliminary determination, we will be
affording Guangdong Petroleum a second opportunity to respond to
Section A of the Department's questionnaire, as discussed in the
``Separate Rates'' section of this notice. Furthermore, pending receipt
of a complete Section A response from Guangdong Petroleum, we will
revisit the issue regarding the appropriate basis for EP for this PRC
exporter's sales to the United States in the final determination.
During the POI, Zhujian sold subject merchandise to ICC through
Guangdong Petroleum. In their questionnaire responses, both Zhujian and
ICC claimed that ICC's prices to unaffiliated customers in the United
States, rather than Guangdong Petroleum's prices to ICC, should form
the basis for EP because neither Zhujian nor Guangdong Petroleum knew
or had reason to know at the time of sale to ICC whether the
merchandise was ultimately destined for the United States. After
analyzing the record evidence in light of Zhujian and ICC's arguments,
we have preliminarily determined that Guangdong Petroleum's prices to
ICC are the more appropriate basis for calculating EP. As we understand
the facts, ICC purchases persulfates from Guangdong Petroleum with the
assistance of its Hong Kong office. ICC then warehouses the merchandise
in New Jersey for resale to customers both inside and outside the
United States. The record does not make clear whether this warehoused
merchandise is entered for consumption or entered into a bonded
warehouse in the United States. Nor is the record clear regarding the
share of ICC's purchases from Guangdong Petroleum this warehoused
merchandise accounts for. The record does indicate, however, that ICC
is the U.S. importer of record. That is, Guangdong Petroleum sells the
subject merchandise--in an arm's-length transaction--directly to the
U.S. importer of record. This is, at first impression, an EP sales
situation, requiring that Guangdong Petroleum's sales prices serve as
the basis for EP. In such situations, the Department typically does not
inquire into the disposition of the merchandise after importation.
At verification, we intend to examine, among other things, the role
and function of ICC's Hong Kong office and the extent to which ICC
enters the merchandise into a bonded warehouse or for consumption in
the United States. We hereby invite interested parties to comment on
this issue. Interested party comments must be submitted no later than
January 6, 1997.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether persulfates from the PRC sold to the United
States by the PRC exporters receiving separate rates were made at less
than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as specified in the
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Export Price
For both AJ and Wuxi, we calculated EP in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to
importation and constructed export price (``CEP'') methodology was not
otherwise indicated. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the
Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to the factors of
production.
We made company-specific adjustments as follows:
1. AJ
We calculated EP based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as appropriate. We made
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for the
following services which were provided by market economy suppliers:
ocean freight; marine insurance; and U.S. inland insurance. We also
deducted from the starting price, where appropriate, an amount for
foreign inland freight and port construction fees. When these movement
services were provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, we valued them
using Indian rates.
2. Wuxi
We calculated EP based on packed, FOB PRC port prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Wuxi claimed that all the
expenses for movement services were paid by the purchaser and, thus, we
did not make any adjustments to the starting price.
Normal Value
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on factors of production reported by the factory in the PRC which
produced persulfates sold by the two exporters. We valued all the input
factors using PI from India.
Factor Valuations
The selection of the surrogate values was based on the quality and
contemporaneity of the data. Where possible, we attempted to value
material inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive domestic prices. Where we
were not able to rely on domestic prices, we used import prices to
value factors. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them
delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous with the POI, we
adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices or, in the case of
labor rates, consumer price indices, published in the International
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics. For a complete
analysis of surrogate values, see Factors Memorandum.
[[Page 68236]]
To value ammonium sulfate, caustic soda, caustic potash, sulfuric
acid, and sodium sulfate we used public information from POI issues of
the Indian publication Chemical Weekly. For potassium sulfate and
anhydrous ammonia, we relied on import prices contained in the February
and July 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of
India (Monthly Statistics). To value ammonium persulfate, we used a
price quotation obtained by interested parties from an Indian factory,
the Rajendra Chemical Ltd., Bombay. For further discussion, see the
Factors Memorandum.
To value coal (steam), we relied on public information reported in
the antidumping investigation of Pencils from the PRC. (See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Case Pencils from the
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 55625, November 8, 1994.) For
electricity, we relied upon public information from Confederation of
Indian Industries Handbook of Statistics 1995 to obtain an average
price for electricity provided to large-size industries. For oil, we
relied on public information reported in the antidumping investigation
of Polyvinyl Alcohol from the PRC. (See Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of
China 61 FR 14057 (March 29, 1996) (Polyvinyl Alcohol)). To value water
we relied on public information reported in the antidumping
investigation of Coumarin from the PRC. (See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin from the People's Republic of
China, 59 FR 66895, December 28, 1994) (Coumarin).
To value packing materials such as polyethylene liners and
polypropylene sacks, we relied upon Indian import data from the
February and July 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics.
Regarding wooden pallets, we relied on public information reported
in the antidumping investigation of Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from
the PRC. (See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of
China, 61 FR 53190, October 10, 1996).
To value labor, we inflated to POI values, 1990 labor data from the
United Nations' publication Yearbook of Labour Statistics (YLS), and we
relied on methodology used in the antidumping investigation of Coumarin
(See also Factors Memorandum). Although one of the respondents provided
1994 Indian labor rates from the 1995 World Labor Report, Foreign Labor
Trends, we did not use these rates because they reflected the
experience in the general manufacturing sector and not labor rates
specific to the chemical sector.
To value truck freight, we used public information from the Indian
periodical The Times of India. To value ocean freight we used public
information from the antidumping investigation of Coumarin. To value
containerization and loading, we relied on public information reported
in the antidumping investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol.
To value foreign brokerage and handling, we relied on public
information reported in the antidumping investigation of Stainless
Steel Bar from India. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915, December 28,
1996.) For marine insurance, we used public information reported in the
antidumping investigation of Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes,
from India. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, from India, 58 FR 7535, 7538,
February 8, 1993.)
To value FOH, SG&A and profit, we relied on the financial
statements of Sanderson, an Indian producer of sulphuric acid and other
chemicals, which were submitted by Zhujian/ICC, because this financial
data was consistent with that obtained from other chemical producers.
The alternative data submitted by the petitioner which relied on the
financial statements of an Indian producer of hydrogen peroxide was
inappropriate when benchmarked against the financial data for other
chemical producers. (See Factors Memorandum.) We also determined that
the data submitted by AJ, AJ Works, and Wuxi, which relied on aggregate
financial data from the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the Indian
metals and chemicals industries was inappropriate because it was not
industry-specific. (See Factors Memorandum.)
Where appropriate, we have removed from the surrogate FOH and SG&A
calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial statements
(see Bicycles, 61 FR 19039). We adjusted the FOH, SG&A, and profit
percentages that the respondent calculated from Sanderson's financial
statements as follows: (1) we included manufacturing energy expenses in
the base to which the FOH rate is applied, (2) we included ``other''
expenses and ``miscellaneous'' expenses in SG&A, and (3) we calculated
the profit percentage using profit before prior period adjustments.
(See Factors Memorandum.)
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the
information used in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of persulfates
from the PRC, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. The Customs Service will require a cash deposit or
posting of a bond equal to the estimated dumping margins by which the
normal value exceeds the EP, as shown below. These suspension of
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Manufacturer/producer/exporter average margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation............ 15.62
Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import & Export Corporation....... 50.35
China-Wide Rate......................................... 76.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China-Wide Rate
A China-Wide Rate has been assigned to persulfates based on the
average margin contained in the petition, as amended by the Department.
The China-Wide rate applies to all entries of that product except for
entries from exporters/factories that are identified individually
above.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, the corresponding U.S. industry.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than March 26, 1997, and
rebuttal briefs, no later than March 31, 1997. A list of authorities
used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs should accompany
these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes.
[[Page 68237]]
We will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested
parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or
rebuttal briefs. At this time, the hearing is scheduled for April 3,
1997, time and place to be determined, at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of
the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by no later
than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act.
Dated: December 18, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-32871 Filed 12-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
