95-19260. Sparklers From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 39931-39933]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-19260]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    [A-570-804]
    
    
    Sparklers 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.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, the Elkton 
    Sparkler Company and the Diamond Sparkler Company, the Department of 
    Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of the 
    antidumping duty order on sparklers from the People's Republic of China 
    (PRC). The review was requested for one manufacturer, Guangxi Native 
    Produce Import and Export Corporation, Beihai Fireworks and 
    Firecrackers Branch (Guangxi). The review covers the period June 1, 
    1993 through May 31, 1994.
        As a result of this review, we have preliminarily determined to 
    assess an antidumping duty of 93.54 percent on the merchandise subject 
    to the review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
    preliminary results of the review.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor, 
    Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
    Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
    Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
    5831/4114.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On June 18, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register 
    the antidumping duty order on sparklers from the PRC (56 FR 27946). On 
    June 7, 1994, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register 
    notifying interested parties of the opportunity to request an 
    administrative review of sparklers from the PRC (58 FR 31941). On June 
    23, 1994, the petitioners requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.22(a), that we conduct an administrative review of exports to the 
    United States by Guangxi, for the period June 1, 1993 through May 31, 
    1994. We published a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty 
    administrative review on July 15, 1994 (58 FR 39007).
        The initiation notice indicated that the review would cover Guangxi 
    and would cover conditionally all other exporters of this merchandise. 
    The Department is now conducting a review in accordance with section 
    751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    
    Scope of the Review
    
        The products covered by this administrative review are sparklers 
    from the PRC. Sparklers are fireworks, each comprising a cut-to-length 
    wire, one end of which is coated with a chemical mix that emits bright 
    sparks while burning. Sparklers are currently classifiable 
    
    [[Page 39932]]
    under the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) subheading 3604.10.00. The HTS 
    subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 
    written description remains dispositive as to the scope of this 
    proceeding.
    
    Best Information Available
    
        On July 20, 1994, we mailed Guangxi a questionnaire explaining the 
    review procedures. In addition, a short questionnaire was sent to 
    Guangxi, the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region People's Government, the 
    Embassy of the People's Republic of China, the Guangxi Foreign Economic 
    Relations and Trade Commission and the Guangxi People's Government-
    Beijing Office. This questionnaire sought to ascertain whether Guangxi 
    shall be entitled to a separate rate by demonstrating both de jure and 
    de facto absence of central government control with respect to exports.
        In addition, the questionnaire states:
    
    [b]ecause we consider the PRC to be a non-market economy for the 
    purposes of this review, we will presume that each company that 
    exported the subject merchandise during the period of review (POR) 
    is owned or controlled by the PRC government until evidence is 
    placed on the record that demonstrates otherwise. Absent evidence to 
    the contrary, we will consider a single antidumping duty rate to be 
    appropriate for all exporters. However, if a company can demonstrate 
    an absence of central government control with respect to pricing 
    exports, both in law and in fact, it will be entitled to a rate 
    separate from the rate for other PRC firms.
    
        The questionnaires, which covered exports to the United States for 
    the period of review (POR), were due on August 23, 1994. We did not 
    receive a response from any party by the due date.
        Furthermore, we had previously asked Skypak International Express 
    (TNT) to trace the mailing and verify Guangxi's receipt of the 
    document. On August 3, 1994, TNT's delivery office in Hong Kong 
    confirmed that the questionnaire was accepted by a representative of 
    Guangxi on August 2, 1994. Because we received no response and have not 
    been contacted by Guangxi or any other respondent, we preliminarily 
    determine that Guangxi is no longer entitled to a separate rate, as 
    absence of central government control with regard to exports was not 
    demonstrated. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, 
    we are using the best information available (BIA) as the basis for 
    determining a dumping margin for all entries into the United States of 
    the subject merchandise during the POR.
        In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
    tiered methodology whereby the Department normally assigns lower 
    margins to those respondents who cooperate in a review, and margins 
    based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents who do not 
    cooperate in a review.
        In accordance with our BIA methodology for uncooperative 
    respondents, we assign as BIA the higher of: (1) the highest of the 
    rates found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in 
    the same country of origin in the less than fair value (LTFV) 
    investigation or prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate 
    found in this review for any firm for the same class or kind of 
    merchandise in the same country of origin (see Final Results of 
    Antidumping Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
    Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France; et. al. (57 FR 
    28379, June 24, 1992)).
        This methodology has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
    the Federal Circuit (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. the United 
    States, 996 F.2nd 1185 (CAFC 1993); see also Krupp Stahl Ag. et. al. v. 
    the United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). Given that Guangxi did 
    not respond to the Department's questionnaires, we find that Guangxi 
    has not cooperated in this review.
        In accordance with our methodology we have used as BIA the highest 
    rate established in the remand of the LTFV final determination (58 FR 
    53708, July 29, 1993), the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 percent.
    Preliminary Results of the Review
    
        As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
    margin to be the following:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Margin  
               Manufacturer/exporter               Time period     (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PRC country-wide rate.....................    6/1/93-5/31/94       93.54
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Interested parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 
    5 days of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 
    10 days of publication. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
    or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of 
    publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited 
    to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later 
    than 37 days after the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
    will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first 
    workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final 
    results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
    of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs or comments.
        Upon completion of this review, the Department shall determine, and 
    the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
    appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
    instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
        Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
    upon publication of notice of final results of administrative review 
    for all shipments of sparklers from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
    warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
    provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for 
    Guangxi will be the PRC country-wide rate as stated above; (2) for 
    previously reviewed or investigated companies that received separate 
    rates not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
    company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all 
    other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC country-wide 
    rate of 93.54 percent, the rate established on remand of the LTFV final 
    determination; and (4) the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter 
    will be the rate established for that firm; if a non-PRC exporter does 
    not have its own separate rate, the deposit rate for that firm's 
    shipments will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that 
    exporter. In all cases, the rate applicable to a firm normally should 
    change only as a result of a review of that firm, except in instances 
    of change of ownership.
        These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
    until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
    review.
        This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
    their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate 
    regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
    of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
    with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
    reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
    assessment of double antidumping duties.
        This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
    section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
    
    
    [[Page 39933]]
    
        Dated July 28, 1995.
    Susan G. Esserman,
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 95-19260 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
8/4/1995
Published:
08/04/1995
Department:
Commerce Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
Document Number:
95-19260
Dates:
August 4, 1995.
Pages:
39931-39933 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-570-804
PDF File:
95-19260.pdf