[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17367-17372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9436]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-825]
Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review of sebacic acid 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 sebacic acid
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to requests from
the petitioner, Union Camp Corporation, and four respondents: Tianjin
Chemicals Import and Export Corporation (Tianjin), Guangdong Chemicals
Import and Export Corporation (Guangdong), Sinochem International
Chemicals Company, Ltd. (SICC) and Sinochem Jiangsu Import and Export
Corporation (Jiangsu). This review covers four exporters of the subject
merchandise. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 1996, through June
30, 1997.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV) during this period. If these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on
the difference between the United States price (USP) and NV. These
assessment rates, if adopted for the final results of the review, will
be calculated on an importer-specific ad valorem duty basis. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Stephen Jacques,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-1391.
APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: 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 in reference to the regulations, codified
at 19 CFR part 351, published on May 19, 1997.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping
duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC on July 14, 1995 (59 FR 35909).
On July 21, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register (62
FR 38973) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC covering the
period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997.
On July 30, 1997, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Union Camp
requested that we conduct an administrative review of Tianjin,
Guangdong, SICC, and Jiangsu. On July 29, 1997, Tianjin, Guangdong and
SICC requested that we conduct an administrative review. Also on July
29, 1997, Tianjin has requested partial revocation of the antidumping
duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC. However, because we have
preliminarily determined a margin of 3.53 percent for Tianjin, which is
above the Department's de minimis standard of 0.5 percent, we
preliminarily determine that Tianjin has not met the requirements for
revocation. We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping
duty administrative review on August 28, 1997 (62 FR 45621). On August
30, 1997, we issued questionnaires to the four respondents. Jiangsu did
not respond to the Department's questionnaire. The Department is
conducting this
[[Page 17368]]
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
The products covered by this order are all grades of sebacic acid,
a dicarboxylic acid with the formula (CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but
are not limited to CP Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA
color), Purified Grade (1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color),
and Nylon Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The
principal difference between the grades is the quantity of ash and
color. Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of
which the predominant species is the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is
sold generally as a free-flowing powder/flake.
Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production
of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles
and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants,
polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives,
lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.
Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading
2917.13.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
proceeding remains dispositive.
This review covers the period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997,
and four exporters of Chinese sebacic acid.
Verification
We conducted verification of the sales and factor information
provided by respondent Tianjin located in Tianjin, PRC and one of its
producers, Hengshui Dongfeng Chemical Plant (Hengshui), located in
Hengshui, PRC. We conducted the verifications using standard
verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the
public versions of the verification reports.
Separate Rates
1. Background and Summary of Findings
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy countries a
single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria 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 the 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''). Evidence supporting, though
not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over
export activities 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. Evidence relevant to a de facto absence of government
control with respect to exports is based on four factors, whether the
respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent from the
government and other exporters; (2) can retain the proceeds from its
export sales; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts;
and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of
management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; See also Sparklers at 20589.
In our final determination of sales at less than fair value for the
POR covering July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996, the Department
determined that there was de jure and de facto absence of government
control of each company's export activities and determined that each
company warranted a company-specific dumping margin. See Final Results
of Antidumping Administrative Review: Sebacic Acid From the People's
Republic of China (62 FR 65674, December 15, 1997) (``Sebacic Acid'').
For this period of review, SICC , Tianjin and Guangdong have responded
to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates.
We have found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the
final determination in the previous administrative review and continues
to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in
fact, with respect to their exports, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. During verification of
Tianjin, we examined its business and financial statements. We found no
evidence of government control of Tianjin's export activities.
2. Separate Rate Determination for Non-Responsive Company
For Jiangsu, which did not respond to the questionnaire, we
preliminarily determine that this company does not merit a separate
rate. Because the Department assigns a single rate to companies in a
non-market economy unless an exporter can demonstrate absence of
government control, we preliminarily determine that Jiangsu is subject
to the country-wide rate for this case.
United States Price
For SICC, Tianjin and Guangdong, the Department based USP on export
price (EP), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We made
deductions from EP, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight,
ocean freight, brokerage and handling, and marine insurance. See
``Factor Valuation'' section of this notice. We selected India as the
surrogate country for the reasons explained in the ``Normal Value''
section of this notice.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production
methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country;
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using
home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act.
The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all
previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not
permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country
prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has
contested such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC
as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by
valuing the factors of production in a comparable market economy
country which is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Factors of production include, but are not limited to: (1) hours of
labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts
of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital
cost, including depreciation.
[[Page 17369]]
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408 of the
Department's regulations direct us to select a surrogate country that
is economically comparable to the PRC. On the basis of per capita gross
domestic product (GDP), the growth rate in per capita GDP, and the
national distribution of labor, we find that India is a comparable
economy to the PRC (See Memorandum from Director, Office of Policy, to
Office Director, AD/CVD Group III, Office 9, dated February 5, 1998).
The statute (section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408 of
the Department's regulations) also requires that, to the extent
possible, the Department use a surrogate country that is a significant
producer of merchandise comparable to sebacic acid. The countries that
we confirmed to be producers of sebacic acid, such as Japan and the
United States, do not have economies comparable to the PRC. We found
that information contained in respondent's December 4, 1997 submission
indicates that India was a producer of sebacic acid during the POR.
Although we do not have information about the quantity of sebacic acid
produced in India, we reviewed a fax from an Indian sebacic acid
producer with a price quote to a U.S. importer. Moreover, in the last
administrative review of this order, we determined that India is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise (e.g., oxalic acid)
during the POR. (See the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of the 1996/1997 Review for sebacic acid, page 2) Therefore, we
find that India fulfills both requirements of the statute.
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of
production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In
examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly
available value which was: (1) an average non-export value; (2)
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most
contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-
exclusive. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price indices published in
the IMF's International Financial Statistics. When necessary, we
adjusted the values reported in the Chemical Weekly to exclude sales
and excise taxes. In accordance with our practice, we added to CIF
import values from India a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of
the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to the factory,
or from the domestic supplier to the factory. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From the People's Republic of China (62 FR 61977, November 20,
1997) In accordance with this methodology, we valued the factors of
production as follows:
For castor oil, the Department did not use the surrogate values for
castor oil submitted by petitioners in their December 4, 1997
submission because there was no source documentation. We did not use
respondent's data because we could not determine whether they were
contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we have valued this material
using price data reported in The Economic Times (Bombay), adjusted for
inflation, for Hyderabad, Kanpur, Calcutta, and Delhi during the months
of June 1995 through December 1995. The Department adjusted these
values to account for freight costs between the supplier and the
respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
For castor seed, the Department did not use the surrogate values
for castor oil submitted by petitioners in their December 4, 1997
submission because there was no source documentation. We did not use
respondent's data as we could not determine whether they were the
contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we have valued this material
using price data reported in The Economic Times (Bombay), adjusted for
inflation, for Hyderabad and Kanpur during the months of June 1995
through December 1995. The Department adjusted these values to account
for freight costs between the supplier and the respondents' sebacic
acid manufacturing facilities.
For caustic soda, the Department used a value reported in the
publication Chemical Weekly (published in India), using a value
published in July 1997 (with a June 1997 price value) submitted by
respondents. Because price quotes for caustic soda reported by Chemical
Weekly are for chemicals with a 100% concentration level of caustic
soda, we made chemical purity adjustments according to the particular
concentration level of caustic soda used by respondents. We adjusted
this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred
from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing
facilities.
For macropore resin, we are using the value for activated carbon
because the valuations are interchangeable, according to an April 1997
Memorandum from Richard Moreland, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Import Administration to all reviewers. For activated carbon, we are
using a value from Chemical Weekly from December 1996 submitted by
respondent. The Department adjusted this value to account for freight
costs between the supplier and the respondents' sebacic acid
manufacturing facilities.
For cresol, we are using respondents December 4, 1997 submission of
data for price quotes for meta cresol, ortho cresol, and para cresol
from Chemical Weekly from January 1997. We followed the same
methodology to calculate a value for cresol that we used in the
previous administrative review. Before calculating the cresol value, we
adjusted the para cresol value to exclude sales and excise taxes but we
did not have to adjust the meta cresol or ortho cresol values to
exclude sales and excise taxes. We adjusted the value to include
freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to the respondents'
sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
In Hengshui's questionnaire response to the Department, it
submitted a usage factor for activated carbon. However, in pre-
verification corrections, Hengshui stated it no longer uses activated
carbon to produce sebacic acid, so we did not use activated carbon as
an input.
For sodium chloride (also referred to as sodium chlorite or vacuum
salt), we are using a published market price reported in Chemical
Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted this
value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred from
the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing
facilities.
For phenol, we are using a published market price reported in
Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted
this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred
from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing
facilities.
For zinc oxide, we are using a published market price reported in
Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted
this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred
from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing
facilities.
For sulphuric acid, we are using a published market price reported
in Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. Because
price quotes for sulphuric acid reported by Chemical Weekly are for
chemicals with a 100% concentration level of sulphuric acid, we made
chemical purity adjustments according to the particular concentration
level of sulphuric acid used by respondents. We adjusted this value to
exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred from the
suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
[[Page 17370]]
For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at Import
Administration's homepage, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected
NME Countries, revised on June 2, 1997. Because of the variability of
wage rates in countries with similar per capita GDPs, section
351.408(c)(3) of the Department's new AD regulations (62 FR 27296, May
19, 1997) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source
of this wage rate data on the Import Administration's homepage is found
in the 1996 Year Book of Labour Statistics, International Labour Office
(``ILO''), (Geneva: 1996), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The
years of the reported wage rates range from 1990 to 1995.
At verification, we discovered that Hengshui underreported
unskilled labor employees because Hengshui was not able to substantiate
its verbal claim, with source documentation, that additional unskilled
labor employees were not involved in producing sebacic acid. At
verification, we reviewed the employee salary ledger and the labor
worksheet for the sebacic acid production unit and determined that the
additional unskilled labor employees on the employee salary list for
the sebacic acid production unit were involved in producing sebacic
acid. Therefore, we increased the number of unskilled direct labor
hours used to make sebacic acid to the reported labor usage factors. As
this subject involves proprietary information, please see the Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 Review for
sebacic acid for a more complete discussion of this issue.
For factory overhead, we used information obtained from the April
1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. From ``Statement 1--Combined
Income, Value of Production, Expenditure and Appropriation Accounts,
Industry Group-wise'' of that report for the Indian metals and
chemicals industries, we summed those components which pertain to
overhead expenses and divided them by the sum of those components
pertaining to the cost of manufacturing to calculate a factory overhead
rate of 15.41 percent. We multiplied this factory overhead rate of
15.41 percent by the cost of manufacture divided by one minus the
factory overhead rate of 15.41 percent.
For steam coal, we used prices published in Monthly Statistics of
the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports for the period of April
1995 through January 1996, adjusted for inflation. We did not use the
respondents' submitted OECD/IEA data for steam coal from 1990 because
we had more recent data. Hengshui reported one aggregate category of
coal in its questionnaire response. However, at verification, Hengshui
presented corrections at the beginning of verification which split the
single coal category into two sub-categories: soft and hard coal. We
verified that Hengshui's use of two types of coal were correctly
presented to the Department at verification. Consequently, for
Hengshui, we have used the value for soft coal from the Gazette of
India, June 1994, adjusted for inflation. However, we were unable to
obtain publicly available information for hard coal. Therefore, for
Hengshui's hard coal, we are using the steam coal value from the
Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports for
the period of April 1995 through January 1996, adjusted for inflation.
For all three types of coal used (hard, soft, and steam), we adjusted
the values to include freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to
the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
For electricity, the respondents submitted electricity data from
1990, which was not used because we had more recent data. We used
information obtained from the Current Energy Scene in India for July
1995 and adjusted this value for inflation. At verification, we
discovered that Hengshui did not report the electricity used to process
crude glycerine, a by-product, into refined glycerine. We added the
amount of electricity used to process crude glycerine into refined
glycerine to the electricity usage factor reported to the Department in
Hengshui's questionnaire response. At verification, we also could not
substantiate, with source documentation, the amount deducted for an
electric sub-meter. Therefore, we did not allow the deduction of the
amount of electricity recorded at the sub-meter from the total amount
of electricity used to produce sebacic acid. As this subject involves
proprietary information, please see the Analysis Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 Review for sebacic acid for a more
complete discussion of this issue.
For the value of export packing (plastic bags and woven bags), the
Department used the value of imports into India during April 1995
through February 1996, as reported in the Monthly Statistics of Foreign
Trade of India, Volume II, and adjusted these values for inflation. We
did not use values from respondents because there was no supporting
documentation. Also, we adjusted this value to account for freight
expenses.
For foreign inland freight, the Department relied upon the trucking
freight rates reported in The Times of India, April 20, 1994, which
source was also applied to Polyvinyl Alcohol (60 FR 52647, October 10,
1995), and the value was adjusted for inflation. The rail freight rates
used, which were adjusted for inflation, were reported to the
Department in a December 1989 embassy cable for the final results of
the antidumping administrative review for Shop Towels of Cotton from
the PRC (56 FR 60969).
For ocean freight, we used the surrogate value used in the last
administrative review. This value, provided by the Federal Maritime
Commission on January 24, 1997, includes delivery destination charges
and fuel adjustment charges and was not adjusted because the value was
within the POR. For Tianjin, we used actual market economy shipping
costs as reported by respondents where applicable.
To calculate the expense for marine insurance, we used information
from a publicly summarized version of the questionnaire response for
the investigation of sales of less than fair value of Sulphur Vat Dyes
from India (62 FR 42758). The marine insurance rate reported in the
public version of the October 8, 1992 response was adjusted for
inflation to reflect marine insurance charges during the POR.
For foreign brokerage and handling charges, we used information
from publicly available data for foreign brokerage and handling
reported for the investigation for Sulphur Vat Dyes, (62 FR 42758)
adjusted for inflation.
Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous
administrative review for sebacic acid, we have determined that fatty
acid, glycerine, and castor seed cake (when castor oil is self-
produced) are by-products. Therefore, as by-products, we subtracted the
sales revenue of fatty acid, glycerine, and, where applicable, castor
seed cake, from the estimated production costs of sebacic acid. This
treatment of by-products is also consistent with generally accepted
accounting principles. (See Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis
(1991) at pages 539-544).
To value fatty acid, we used publicly available published
information from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India
(Monthly Statistics) for the period April 1995 through February 1996
and adjusted this data for inflation.
To value glycerine, we used the average price for glycerine (IW and
CP) in the publication Chemical Weekly from January 1997 from the
[[Page 17371]]
respondents. We adjusted these values to include freight expenses
incurred from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid
manufacturing facilities.
We also allocated a by-product credit for glycerine to the
production cost for the co-product capryl alcohol. We deducted a by-
product credit for glycerine from both sebacic acid and capryl alcohol
based on the ratio of the value of sebacic acid to the total value of
both sebacic acid and capryl alcohol.
Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous
administrative review, we have determined that capryl alcohol is a co-
product. Therefore, we have allocated the factor inputs, based on the
relative quantity of output of this product and sebacic acid.
Additionally, we have used the production times necessary to complete
each production stage of sebacic acid as a basis for allocating the
amount of labor, energy usage, and factory overhead among the co-
product(s). This treatment of co-products is consistent with generally
accepted accounting principles. (See Cost Accounting: A Managerial
Emphasis (1991) at pages 528-533).
To value capryl alcohol, we used publicly available published
information for octanol from Chemical Weekly from June 1997 and
adjusted the price for sales and excise taxes. We used the Chemical
Weekly octanol value from June 1997. Also, respondents submitted value
data from the Chemical Marketing Reporter (U.S.). Octanol is used as
the surrogate value for capryl alcohol because, in a letter submitted
by respondents in attachment four of their December 4, 1997 submission
concerning surrogate values, the editor of Chemical Weekly states that
the reference to octanol in the journal refers to the more common 2-
octanol (2-ethylhexanol). We adjusted these values to exclude taxes and
to include freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to the
respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
To value castor seed cake, we used the value for castor seed from
The Economic Times (Bombay) submitted by respondents, and adjusted this
value for inflation.
For selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we used
information from the same source we used for factory overhead. We
summed the values which comprised the components of SG&A and divided
that figure by the same cost of manufacturing figure used to determine
factory overhead, to arrive at an SG&A rate of 21.67 percent. We
multiplied this SG&A rate of 21.67 percent by the total cost of
manufacture, which includes factory overhead.
For the calculation of profit, we used information from the April
1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. We divided the reported before-tax
profit for the ``processing and manufacture: metals, chemicals, and
products thereof'' category by the sum of those components pertaining
to the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A to calculate a profit rate of
5.24 percent. We multiplied this profit rate of 5.24 percent by the sum
of the total cost of manufacture and SG&A.
Preliminary Results of Review
For Jiangsu, which failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we have not granted a separate rate and the country-wide
rate will apply to all sales.
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins
exist:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinochem Jiangsu I/E Corp...................................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 243.40%
Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp..................................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 3.53
Sinochem International Chemicals Corp.......................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 0.35
Guangdong Chemicals I/E Corp................................................... 7/01/96-6/30/97 16.35
Country-Wide Rate.............................................................. 7/01/96-6/30/97 243.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 written
comments (case briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice. Rebuttal comments (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, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping
duties on all entries. We will calculate an importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rate for each class or kind of merchandise
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated
for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value
of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the
POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory
NV and statutory EP, by the total statutory EP value of the sales
compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference between EP
and customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.)
Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the
reviewed companies named above which have separate rates (SICC,
Tianjin, and Guangdong), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for
those firms established in the final results of this administrative
review; (2) for companies previously found to be entitled to a separate
rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rates will
be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3)
for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit
rates will be the PRC country-wide rate indicated above; and (4) the
cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the
PRC 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.
[[Page 17372]]
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 notice also serves as preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 2, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-9436 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
