[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 98 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12445]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 23, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-001]
Potassium Permanganate 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 December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of
China. The review covers 15 Chinese producers/exporters and 32 third-
country resellers for the period January 1, 1990, through December 31,
1990. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we determine the
country-wide dumping margin for the People's Republic of China to be
128.94 percent. Since none of the third-country resellers have
demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate for sales made during this
period or review, they will receive the same rate as their suppliers in
the People's Republic of China.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 20230;
telephone (202) 482-4474 or 482-3814 respectively.
Background
On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results (58 FR 69330) of its administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the
People's Republic of China (PRC) (49 FR 3898, January 31, 1984). The
Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff
Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of potassium
permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing,
technical, and pharmaceutical grades. During the review period,
potassium permanganate was classifiable under item 2841.60.0010 of the
harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) The HTS item number is provided for
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive. The review covers 15 producers/ exporters and 32 third-
country resellers for the period January 1, 1990, through December 31,
1990.
Analysis of Comments Received
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. At the request of the following respondents, Zunyi Chemical
Factory (Zunyi), Yue Pak Co. Ltd. (Yue Pak), He-Ro Chemicals, Ltd. (He-
Ro), ICD (HK) Ltd, (ICD (HK)) and an interested party, Novachem, Inc.
(Novahem), we held a public hearing on February 10, 1994. We received
timely comments from the above-named respondents, the above-named
interested party, and the petitioner, Carus Chemical Company.
Comment 1
Methodology: Zunyi and Novachem assert that, in this review, the
Department should have provided them with an opportunity to respond to
a separate rates questionnaire specifically based on the test announced
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People's Republic of China (Sparklers) on May 6, 1991 rather than
that based on the separate rates criteria set forth in Iron
Construction Casting from the People's Republic of China; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (Castings) on January 24,
1991. Zunyi and Novachem assert that in Castings, the Department stated
``Our determination that the PRC is a state-controlled economy in which
all entities are presumed to export under the control of the state
leads us to question the application of multiple rates, absent a clear
showing of legal, financial and economic independence. Thus, we
conclude that a single country-wide rate is application for this
case.'' Zunyi and Novachem contrast that with Sparklers, where the
Department adopted the following position: ``We have determined that
exporters in non-market economy countries are entitled to separate,
company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of
control by the central government, both in law and in fact, with
respect to exports. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a
finding of de jure absence of central control includes: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulation associated with an individual exporter's
business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; or (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence
of central government control with respect to exports is based on two
prerequisites: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices
independently of the government and other exporters; and (2) whether
each exporter can keep the proceeds from its sales.''
Zunyi and Novachem assert that the application in this case of the
test utilized in Castings is inappropriate for the following reasons.
First, since questionnaires were not issued until three months after
the Sparklers decision was rendered, Zunyi and Novachem maintain that
reliance on an approach in place at time of initiation is
inappropriate. Second, Zunyi and Novachem state that the Court of
International Trade (CIT) has directed the Department to apply the
Sparklers methodology in a remand of Castings, the very case on which
the Department based its approach in this review. Third, Zunyi and
Novachem claim that in reviews being conducted during the same time
period as this one, the Department has utilized the methodology set
forth in Sparklers. As an example, Zunyi and Novachem point to the
1988-1989 review of Shop Towels from the People's Republic of China,
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 60,969
(Nov. 29, 1991), where the Department requested information after the
preliminary determination to determine whether the respondent qualified
for a separate rate under the Sparklers criteria. Zunyi and Novachem
argue that not to issue a new separate rates questionnaire in this
review would be arbitrary and capricious. Finally, Zunyi and Novachem
assert that it is within the capacity of the Department to change
methodologies within reviews and that, in light of the above claims,
the Department should now issue a questionnaire based on the Sparklers
test to determine whether PRC respondents qualify for a separate rate.
Petitioner points out that the separate rates test set forth in
Sparklers does not, in fact, constitute a new methodology, but is
merely a continuation and elaboration of that set forth in Castings.
Furthermore, petitioner asserts that respondents were on notice
regarding what they were required to show to obtain a separate rate
under Castings, since that decision was cited in the petitioner's
request for review and because the Department requested from them the
information needed to make a separate rate decision. Petitioner also
notes that the remand of the Department's determination in Castings was
based on the fact that because the Castings test was not enunciated
until the final results of that review, respondents had not been given
an opportunity to attempt to demonstrate their entitlement to a
separate rate, even under the Castings criteria (``a clear showing of
legal, financial and economic independence''). Finally, petitioner
states that the Department has broad discretion in choosing
methodologies, and that the choice of methodology may vary on a case-
by-case basis.
DOC Position: The Department agrees with the petitioner. The
Castings test and the methodology utilized in Sparklers and most
recently in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (Silicon Carbide)
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) require that producers and exporters in the
PRC receive a single rate unless it is clearly demonstrated that a
particular entity is not subject to governmental control and therefore
merits its own rate. The test employed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide
built upon that used in Castings by outlining specific criteria that we
would consider in determining whether an entity had shown such
autonomy. In this case, Zunyi did not demonstrate adequately that it
was free of governmental control under any of these tests.
Indeed, information on the record indicates that Zunyi was
controlled by municipal authorities. For example, during this period of
review, Zunyi was subject to guidance from municipal authorities
regarding output in terms of value and production, and was not allowed
to enter into contracts with foreign entities or to export directly.
(See DOC Position to Comment 2.)
Furthermore, the Department's use of a questionnaire based on the
Castings test has not prejudiced respondents' position. The respondents
were on notice with respect to their burden of showing their
independence from governmental control if they desired to be given a
separate rate. The supplemental questionnaire sent to Zunyi and other
PRC entities states: ``[I]f you feel that your client is entitled to a
separate rate, submit for the record all documentation that supports
your client's claim of legal, financial, and economic independence.''
Furthermore, respondents were specifically requested to provide
information regarding their corporate organization, relationships with
other businesses, state-ownership, decision making processes, and
corporate accounting information. In addition, Part Two of Appendix V
of the questionnaire, the section directed specifically to
manufacturers, requested information on production for export,
relationships with exporters and how pricing decisions were made with
them, pricing and production methods in general, government policy
directives affecting pricing and production quantity decisions, and
relevant regulatory systems. Thus, respondents have already been
afforded an opportunity to provide whatever information they feel may
support their request for separate rates.
The fact that the Department's decision in Castings was remanded
does not invalidate the fundamental approach outlined therein. In that
case, the CIT found that the Department had not made clear until its
final determination that the respondents had to demonstrate that they
were not subject to governmental control to receive a separate rate.
The CIT's decision merely requires that respondents be put on notice
that they have the burden of demonstrating their independence if they
wish to receive a separate rate. Respondents in this review were made
aware of that burden, but were unable to establish that they were in
fact entitled to any separate rate.
Finally, the Department's decision to issue a Sparklers
questionnaire to a respondent in the Shop Towels case does not require
that it do so in this case. In Shop Towels, the Department had found
the sole responding PRC firm, an import/export firm, to be independent
of governmental control in a previous review and sought only to
ascertain whether that determination remained valid. The record in this
review establishes that Zunyi did not meet the Sparklers standard for
independence. Moreover, as already noted, respondents in the present
case were provided several opportunities to submit evidence
demonstrating lack of governmental control. Under these circumstances,
we have determined that issuing a Sparklers questionnaire in this
review was not necessary.
Comment 2
Separate Rates for PRC Producers: Zuny and Novachem state that the
preliminary results do not fairly represent the information already
submitted by Zunyi on the lack of state control and that Zunyi merits a
separate rate. They assert that state ownership and state control are
two different things. Additionally, Zunyi notes that its response
included the following information which supported its claim that it
functions autonomously. First, Zunyi is totally separate from the
import-export corporations with which it deals; second, the import-
export corporations sign a purchase contract with Zunyi according to a
price agreed upon in a calculation made in U.S. dollars; third, Zunyi's
selling prices are decided by the factory according to cost and market;
fourth Zunyi implemented a contract system in 1987; and fifth, Zunyi is
autonomous in terms of management and accounting, and assumes sole
responsibility in paying taxes and for profits and losses. Based on
these assertions, Zunyi and Novachem claim that they have submitted
enough information to merit a separate rate for Zunyi, alleging that
the Department did not ask for further information.
Petitioner argues that the evidence on the record indicates that
Zunyi is not qualified to receive a separate rate, and that the
Department should make an adverse assumption on this issue due to
Zunyi's failure to provide certain required evidence to support its
claim of independence.
DOC Position: We agree with petitioner. Based on the totality of
information on the record, we have determined that Zunyi is subject to
government control. First Zunyi is under the control of the Economic
Commission of Zunyi City (the Commission), and the Commission gave
``guiding instructions'' as to the ``planning of production in terms of
value and quantity.'' Second, as a ``Zhongguo Faren'', Zunyi was not
allowed by Chinese law to engage in contractual relations with foreign
entities, nor was it allowed to export directly. Instead, it was
required to export through PRC import/export companies. This point was
specifically mentioned in the Sparklers test as a factor weighing
against a finding of independence. Furthermore, Zunyi did not provide
copies of its financial statements despite our two requests for these,
nor did it provide the detailed information we requested regarding its
ownership. Without this critical evidence, the Department is unable to
affirm that Zunyi is entitled to separate rate status, despite the
assertions Zunyi makes in its case brief.
With respect to Zunyi and Novachem's claim that the Department
should have asked for any information that was lacking, the Department
requested on more than one occasion critical information (e.g., Zunyi's
financial statements and specific information regarding ownership), and
that information was not provided by Zunyi. In addition, as noted
above, the information on the record is sufficient for the Department
to determine that Zunyi did not possess the requisite independence to
merit a separate rate.
Comment 3
Market Oriented Industry: Zunyi and Novachem assert that Zunyi
operated under market conditions during the period of review and that
the Department should utilize local factor prices to determine foreign
market value as outlined in the methodology announced in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 175 (September 10, 1991). At
the minimum, they argue, the Department should base fair market value
on a surrogate economy other than Thailand.
DOC Position: Since the margin for this period is based on best
information available, any questions as to which methodology would have
been used have we been able to calculate a margin are moot.
Furthermore, the failure of the PRC Embassy in the United States to
respond to our inquiry regarding industry and market conditions in the
PRC would, in any case, preclude us from determining that market
conditions existed in the PRC for this industry.
Comment 4
Separate Rates Under the Reseller Provision: Zunyi and Novachem
urge the Department to reconsider the decision in its preliminary
results of review that the Hong Kong resellers do not qualify for
separate rates under the intermediate country reseller provisions.
Section 353.47 of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.47) calls
for a separate rate to be calculated for an intermediate country
reseller if all of the following criteria are met:
(1) A reseller in an intermediate country purchases the merchandise
from the producer,
(2) The producer does not know (at the time of the sale) the
country to which the reseller intends to export the merchandise,
(3) The merchandise enters the commerce of the intermediate country
but is not substantially transformed in that country, and
(4) The merchandise is subsequently exported to the United States.
Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD(HK) argue that Hong Kong should be treated
as the country from which the subject merchandise was exported and they
should be given separate rates under this provision, which allows for
qualifying intermediate country resellers to be assigned a margin based
on a comparison between their above cost-of-production sales to the
United States and a fair market value based on the reseller's sales in
its home country or a third country, rather than the margin(s) of its
supplier(s). With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, Yue Pak,
He-Ro and ICD (HK) claim that since they filed import/export
declarations and paid fees applicable only to imports and exports, the
merchandise entered the commerce of Hong Kong, rather than merely being
transshipped through Hong Kong. Furthermore, these parties note that it
is uncontested that the merchandise was not transformed between its
manufacture in the PRC and its shipment to the United States.
In refuting arguments raised by petitioner, these resellers argue
that (1) the length of time that merchandise remains in a third country
should not be a basis for determining intermediate country reseller
status, (2) the amount paid in import/export fees should not be a
criterion, (3) the term ``transshipment'' as used by Yue Pak, He-Ro,
and ICD (HK) in the questionnaire responses does not refer to the
statutory meaning of the term, and (4) the export provisions of the
Tariff Act cited by petitioner are not relevant to the construction of
the reseller provision.
Yue Pak, He-Ro and ICD (HK) also argue that the Department's
comparison of their sales and order-filling process to the practices
described in the final determination in Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur
Vat Dyes, From the People's Republic of China (Sulfur Dyes), 58 FR 7537
(February 8, 1993), is not appropriate because, ``unlike respondents
herein, respondents in Sulfur Dyes had separate procedures for handling
merchandise which was destined to the United States as opposed to
merchandise that was sold in Hong Kong.''
With respect to the knowledge requirement, Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD
(HK) state that the producers from whom they purchased the subject
merchandise had no knowledge of the ultimate destination of this
merchandise. Producer Zunyi, on the other hand, states that it knew, at
the time of sale, the destination of the potassium permanganate it sold
during the period of review.
Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) also claim that, since in the PRC only
import and export corporations had the legal capacity to enter into
``foreign economic contracts'' during the period of review, purchasing
from these entities rather than from the producer/manufacturer should
fulfill this requirement. Zunyi and Novachem also make this point.
Finally, these parties note that export of the merchandise to the
United States is not at issue.
Petitioner argues that no reseller in this case meets the
qualifications for a rate distinct from its producer(s) under 19 CFR
353.47. Petitioner also notes that since the intermediate country
reseller provision constitutes an exception to the general rule that a
reseller's rate is the rate of its supplier(s), the responding
resellers have the burden to showing that each prong of the testy is
fully met.
With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, petitioners assert
that the merchandise was merely transshipped through Hong Kong and did
not enter commerce there, noting that the questionnaire responses of
Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) describe circumstances involved in the
sales of subject merchandise through the resellers which indicate that
the merchandise was never intended to enter the commerce of Hong Kong.
Petitioner also cites the appraisement provisions of the tariff laws to
support its proposition that to ``enter commerce'' is a term of art
that involves merchandise which (1) is intended to be diverted into the
commerce of a third country and was in fact diverted; (2) is not
passing through a third country enroute to a purchaser in a different
country; (3) is not merely passing through a third country; (4) is
intended for consumption in the third country; and (5) is sold or
offered for sale in the third country. In petitioner's view,
warehousing, and/or repackaging, and/or relabelling in a third country
is not considered evidence that the merchandise has entered the
commerce of a country, unless there are other supporting factors. In
addition, petitioner contends that a decision as to whether merchandise
``enters the commerce'' of a country must include consideration of
whether or not the producer country receives any undue benefit by
shipping through a third country.
With respect to the ``knowledge'' prong, petitioner asserts that
resellers have not demonstrated that the producers did not know the
merchandise was destined for the United States. As evidence to the
contrary, they note that U.S.-specific labels were affixed to the
merchandise in the PRC. Furthermore, petitioners note that Zunyi and
Sinochem, the only PRC parties that responded in this review, both
stated in their questionnaire responses that they were aware that some
of their sales of potassium permanganate were destined for the United
States.
Petitioner also points to the fact that the Hong Kong resellers did
not purchase directly from the manufacturer or producer. As mentioned
above, export of the merchandise to the United States is not at issue.
Finally, petitioner urges that even if a reseller in this case had
been able to demonstrate that it qualified for a separate rate under
the intermediate country reseller provision, Hong Kong or third country
sales should not be used as the basis of foreign market value for any
reseller, since there is reason to believe that sales through Hong Kong
are made at below the cost of production.
DOC Position: We agree with petitioner that none of the resellers
have met the requirements for separate rates in this review.
With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, we have considered
the totality of the circumstances in determining whether it has been
shown that this merchandise entered the commerce of Hong Kong before
being shipped to the United States. No isolated factor, such as whether
import/export fees or duties were paid or whether the merchandise was
warehoused in Hong Kong was treated as controlling. Instead, we have
evaluated all factors which may be relevant.
In this case, there are compelling indications that the merchandise
was never intended to be offered for sale in Hong Kong, and that it
entered the territory of Hong Kong for the sole purpose of being
shipped from there to the United States. The questionnaire responses of
Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) clearly and explicitly indicate the
following order pattern. First, a U.S. customer would place an order
with a Hong Kong reseller for a certain quantity of potassium
permanganate. Then the Hong Kong reseller would place an order for the
exact same quantity with the PRC import/export company. The import/
export company would then place an order with the manufacturer for the
same exact quantity which was ultimately shipped through Hong Kong to
the United States. Thus, the record shows that throughout the entire
procedure, the merchandise was always intended only for the U.S.
market.
The treatment of the merchandise in Hong Kong, while not
controlling, is also consistent with the fact that these shipments did
not enter the commerce of Hong Kong. For example, Hong Kong law exempts
from import/export declarations (and associated fees) shipments
consigned under ``through bills of lading'' only. The fact that the
Hong Kong resellers paid import/export fees suggests only that the
merchandise was not shipped under a ``through bill of lading''. In
addition, the fact that the Hong Kong resellers performed ``various
tasks'' in Hong Kong in relation to the merchandise in and of itself is
not sufficient to demonstrate that the merchandise entered the commerce
Hong Kong.
With respect to the ``knowledge'' prong of the test, we note that
labelling placed on the merchandise in the PRC included references to
U.S. Department of Transportation specifications, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration requirements, and even a U.S. ``800''
telephone number for ``Chemtrec''. Many buyers throughout the world
rely on U.S. standards regardless of origin or destination for a wide
variety of products, and reference to a given country's specifications
in labelling does not necessarily imply that the product is destined
for sale in that country. Thus, the labelling in this case is not
considered conclusive evidence of knowledge of the product's ultimate
destination. However, the existence of an ``800'' number carries
somewhat greater weight and no explanation has been offered for the
inclusion of the number on the label. In fact, both Zunyi and Sinochem
have stated in their questionnaire responses that they were aware at
the time of sale that the merchandise was destined for the United
States. After considering the totality of the evidence on the record
with regard to the knowledge prong, including the ordering procedure
discussed above in connection with the ``enter commerce'' prong, we
determine that the evidence is consistent with knowledge by the
producers that the merchandise would be sold to the United States, and
that the resellers have failed to sustain their burden of proof with
respect to this prong.
Because no reseller has shown that its suppliers were unaware that
their merchandise was destined for the United States or that the
shipments of potassium permanganate entered the commerce of Hong Kong,
we need not reach other aspects of the reseller test. Furthermore,
since no reseller has shown that it is entitled to a rate other than
that of its supplier(s), we need not reach the question of whether the
resellers were selling below the cost of production. Therefore, our
preliminary determination that the rate for all resellers for this
review should be that of their suppliers remains unchanged.
Comment 5
Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) state that because they were
cooperative respondents in this review, they should not be ``assigned''
the high best information available (BIA) margin from the 1989 review.
DOC Position: These resellers have not ``been assigned'' a margin
as individual firms. Resellers have no inherent right to a separately
calculated rate, regardless of how cooperative they may be. For the
reasons stated above, the circumstances in which the transactions
occurred during this period do not allow the Department to calculate
separate rates for these sales. Thus, we have not assigned individual
rates to the resellers, and all sales for this review period will be
assessed a duty based on the margin of the procedures.
Comment 6
Alternatively, Yue-Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) argue that the
methodology used to determine the dumping margin in the 1989 review was
flawed, and that therefore the margin determined in that review should
not be applied as BIA for the PRC manufacturers in this review. They
also claim that in selecting a BIA margin, the Department must consider
the most recent information available, and that any data on which BIA
is based is rebuttable. In contesting the use of the 1989 figure, these
resellers claim that the use of Thailand as a surrogate and the use of
petitioner's own cost data were inappropriate in the 1989 review, and
that costs were improperly calculated in that review.
DOC Position: In selecting a BIA margin for the PRC potassium
permanganate industry, we followed our usual practice of assigning an
uncooperative respondent the higher of the highest margin determined
for any firm in any previous review, or the original investigation, or
the highest rate for a responding company in the current review. See 56
FR 393. The Department's two-tier BIA methodology was upheld by the
Court of Appeals in Allied Signal Aerospace Co., et al. v. United
States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, we used the
highest margin from the immediately preceding review, the 1989 review.
The CIT has specifically affirmed, in Novachem, Inc. v. United States,
Slip Op. 92-149 (CIT, August 28, 1992), that the Department acted
reasonably in utilizing Thai factor data and petitioner's data in
determining that rate. Even if the use of Thailand as a surrogate had
not already been upheld by the CIT, however, the use of a margin from
an earlier review does not permit a rearguing of the merits of a rate
in a previous review for which the Department has issued final results
of review. The appropriate time for challenging the merits of the 1989
review has passed. Thus, criticism of our use of the 1989 BIA margin is
unfounded.
Comment 7
Zunyi and the importer Novachem state that Zunyi was responsive in
this review, and that the Department should therefore not apply to it
the same BIA rate that it applied to non-responsive PRC firms.
The petitioner states that the Department properly applied the
highest rate from the 1989 review as BIA for the PRC firms, noting that
this determination was proper due to the presumption of state control
in a non-market economy and the fact that there was no clear showing in
this review that any of the PRC manufacturers of subject merchandise
are independent from the state legally, financially, or economically.
DOC Response: We agree with the petitioner. For the reasons
discussed in response to Comment 2, Zunyi failed to show that it was
sufficiently independent to merit a separate rate for this review.
Indeed, the record contains sufficient information to determine that
separate status would be inappropriate. Thus, Zunyi must be considered
part of the country-wide potassium permanganate industry for the
purposes of this review. Since the government of the PRC and the
industry as a whole did not adequately respond to our questionnaires
(most firms did not respond at all), we have followed our usual
practice in assigning, as BIA for uncooperative respondents, a country-
wide margin (see our response to Comment 6). When a country-wide margin
is assigned, the degree of cooperativeness assessed must be that of the
industry as a whole. To assign a country-wide margin based on the
response of a single firm could mask dumping by other non-responsive
firms within the industry. Therefore, it is not appropriate to evaluate
the extent of Zunyi's cooperation.
Final Results of Review
Upon review of comments submitted, the Department has determined
that the margin for all PRC manufacturers/producers/exporters of
potassium permanganate for the period January 1, 1990 through December
31, 1990, is 128.94 percent. The margin for all third country exporters
of potassium permanganate from the PRC for the period January 1, 1990
through December 31, 1990 shall also be 128.94 percent, the rate of
their suppliers.
The Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions concerning all respondents directly to the U.S. Customs
Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the PRC
country-wide firms will be 128.94 percent, and (2) because no non-PRC
exporter has established on the record, for this administrative review,
that it qualifies as an intermediate country reseller under the terms
of the statute, the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise. Specifically, that rate will be the PRC country-wide
rate of 128.94 percent we have established in this administrative
review.
Because any PRC firm must affirmatively show that it is entitled to
a separate rate before such a rate can be given and any intermediate
country reseller must affirmatively show that it is entitled to such
status under the intermediate country reseller provision of the
regulations (19 CFR 353.47), any new shippers will also be subject to
the PRC country-wide deposit rate until they request review and
demonstrate an entitlement to an exception. Therefore, there is no need
for an ``all others'' cash deposit rate for intermediate country
resellers. Furthermore, no ``all others'' rate will be established for
the PRC. Because a country-wide rate is applied to all imports of
potassium permanganate from the PRC, there is no need for an ``all
others'' cash deposit rate for PRC entities.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tarriff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: May 11, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-12445 Filed 5-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
