Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 24502-24506 [E5-2235]

Download as PDF 24502 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices Dated: May 4, 2005. Glendon D. Deal, Director, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Water and Environmental Programs, Rural Utilities Service. [FR Doc. 05–9241 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Case History [A–570–898] Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s Republic of China Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Brian C. Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3797 or (202) 482– 1766, respectively. AGENCY: Final Determination We determine that chlorinated isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) as provided in section 735 of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section of this notice. SUMMARY: On December 16, 2004, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published its preliminary determination and postponement of the final determination in this case. On February 24, 2005, the Department published an amended preliminary determination in this case. On April 11, 2005, the Department published its partial affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determination in this case. This investigation covers two exporters of chlorinated isocyanurates that are Mandatory Respondents 1 and five Section A Respondents.2 We 1 Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiheng’’) and Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Nanning’’). 2 Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huaao’’); Shanghai Tian Yuan International Trading Co., Ltd., (‘‘Tian Yuan’’); Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Clean Chemical’’); Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation (‘‘Sinochem Hebei’’); and Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation (‘‘Sinochem Shanghai’’). VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 May 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary determination, amended preliminary determination, and preliminary critical circumstances determination. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations for the two Mandatory Respondents. As a result of those changes, the rate assigned to the Section A Respondents has also changed. The Department published its preliminary determination in this investigation on December 16, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 75293 (December 16, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). On February 24, 2005, the Department published an amended preliminary determination. See Notice of Amended Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 9035 (February 24, 2005) (‘‘Amended Preliminary Determination’’). On April 11, 2005, the Department published its partial affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determination. See Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 18362 (April 11, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination’’). Since the publication of the Preliminary Determination, the following events have occurred. The Department conducted verification of the two Mandatory Respondents: Jiheng on January 17 through 21, 2005; Nanning on January 24 through 28, 2005; and a Section A Respondent: Sinochem Hebei on January 27 and 28, 2005. See ‘‘Verification’’ Section below for additional information. On January 13, 2005, Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (the ‘‘Petitioners’’), Jiheng, and Arch Chemicals, Inc. (‘‘Arch’’), an importer of subject merchandise, requested that the Department convene a hearing in this proceeding. On March 4, 2005, the Department informed all interested parties of the hearing date and location. On February 24, 2005, the Department published the Amended Preliminary Determination. On March 4, 2005, the petitioners filed a critical circumstances allegation. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 On March 15, 2005, the Petitioners, BioLab Inc.,3 and the two Mandatory Respondents submitted case briefs. On March 17, BioLab requested a oneday extension to submit rebuttal briefs until March 22, 2005. The Department granted the request, and received the rebuttal briefs from parties on March 22, 2005. On March 24, 2005, the Department convened a public hearing in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(l). Representatives for the two Mandatory Respondents, the Petitioners, and BioLab were in attendance. On March 29, 2005, Jiheng submitted its revised rebuttal brief. On April 11, 2005, the Department published the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination. On April 14, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a case brief on the Department’s Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination. Mandatory Respondents On December 10, 2004, Jiheng and Nanning submitted sales reconciliation documentation. Jiheng also submitted its response to a question addressed in the Department’s November 12, 2004, letter concerning its reported sulfuric acid data. On December 17, 2004, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire for sales and cost reconciliations to Jiheng and Nanning. On December 21, 2004, the Department sent another supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng addressing certain deficiencies in its November 23, 2004, submission. On December 22, 2004, Arch Chemicals, an interested party in this proceeding, submitted a copy of its July 30, 2004, rebuttal scope comments, ‘‘Respondent’s Reply to Petitioners’ Scope Comments,’’ which are applicable to the dual PRC and Spain antidumping proceedings: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from People’s Republic of China and Spain, Case Nos. A–570–898 and A–469–814. On December 20, 2004, Jiheng and Nanning submitted ministerial error allegations. On January 4, 2005, Jiheng submitted its response to the Department’s December 21, 2004, supplemental questionnaire. On January 5 and 12, 2005, Jiheng and Nanning submitted their responses to the Department’s December 17, 2004, sales and cost reconciliations questionnaire, respectively. On January 10, 2005, Jiheng submitted a revised sales listing and factors of 3 On January 27, 2005, BioLab, Inc. (BioLab), a U.S. producer of chlorinated isocyanurates, submitted a letter of appearance as an interested party. E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices production database to correct its date of payment and consumption for coal and water, respectively. On January 10, 2005, Nanning also submitted a revised factors of production listing to replace Attachment 1 of its November 17, 2004, submission. On January 10 and 13, 2005, the Department issued verification outlines to Jiheng and Nanning, respectively. On January 14, 2005, the Petitioners submitted pre-verification comments regarding Jiheng. On January 18, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a letter requesting the Department’s verification team to examine a company, ‘‘Dry Chlorine Corp,’’ which they claimed was possibly related to Jiheng. On January 19, 2005, Jiheng submitted rebuttal comments on the Petitioners’ January 13, 2005, pre-verification comments. On January 21, 2005, Jiheng submitted a revision to its rebuttal comments. On January 24, 2005, the Department issued a clerical error memorandum. See Memorandum to the File, dated January 24, 2005, from the team to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘China’’): Analysis of Allegations of Ministerial Errors (‘‘Clerical Error Memo’’). On January 21, 2005, Jiheng and Nanning requested a 17-day extension until February 11, 2005, for Nanning and other interested parties to submit surrogate value information for consideration in the final determination. The Department granted the request on January 24, 2005. On January 27, 2005, Jiheng filed a second ministerial error allegation. On January 31, 2005, the petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to Jiheng’s January 27, 2005, allegation. On February 4, 2005, Jiheng submitted a letter requesting that the Department strike from the record the petitioners’ January 31, 2005, comments. The Department amended its Preliminary Determination on February 24, 2005. On February 15, 2005, the Petitioners, BioLab, and the two Mandatory Respondents submitted surrogate value data. On February 25, 2005, the petitioners filed additional data. On February 16, 2005, the Department received a request from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to update the HTS numbers in the AD/ CVD Module associated with this proceeding. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, Liaison w/ Customs, Customs Unit, Regarding Request for HTS Number Update(s) to VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 May 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A– 570–898). On March 2, 2005, the Department released the verification report for Jiheng. On March 7, 2005, the Department released the verification report for Nanning. On March 4, 2005, the Petitioners filed a timely allegation of critical circumstances (‘‘critical circumstances petition’’). On March 8 and 14, 2005, the Department requested that Jiheng and Nanning report their shipment data of subject merchandise to the United States on a monthly basis for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. On March 13, 14, and 17, 2005, Nanning and Jiheng provided the requested information. On April 4, 2005, the Department issued its preliminary determination on critical circumstances. See Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination. 24503 included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation. Scope of Investigation The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates: (1) Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3 (NCO)3), (2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3 (2H2O), and (3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular, and tableted forms. This investigation covers all chlorinated isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under subheadings Section A Respondents 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the Harmonized Tariff On December 20, 2004, the Schedule of the United States Department sent the verification (‘‘HTSUS’’).4 The tariff classification outlines to the two selected Section A Respondents, Sinochem Hebei and Tian 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and Yuan. On January 3, 2005, Sinochem dihydrate forms) and Hebei submitted a minor correction to trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff its quantity and value. On January 13, classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2005, Tian Yuan informed the Department that it would not participate 2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that includes chlorinated isocyanurates in verification. On February 24, 2005, the Department released the verification and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Although the report for Sinochem Hebei. HTSUS subheadings are provided for Analysis of Comments Received convenience and customs purposes, the All issues raised in the case and written description of the scope of this rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation is dispositive. Arch’s investigation are addressed in the Issues patented chlorinated isocyanurates and Decision Memorandum, dated May tablet is also included in the scope of 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this this investigation. See Scope Comments notice (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’). A list section, above. See also Partial of the issues which parties raised and to Affirmative Preliminary Determination which we respond in the Decision of Critical Circumstances: Chlorinated Memorandum is attached to this notice Isocyanurates from the People’s as an Appendix. The Decision Republic of China, 70 FR 18362 (April Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit 4 In the scope section of the Department’s initiation and in its preliminary determination (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce Building, notices, chlorinated isocyanurates were classified Room B–099, and is accessible on the under subheading 2933.69.6050 of the HTSUS. (See Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: copy and electronic version of the Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s Republic of China and Spain, 69 FR 32,488 (June memorandum are identical in content. Scope Comments In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Arch’s patented chlorinated isocyanurate tablet is included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation. See Preliminary Determination. We received no further comments from any interested party regarding our preliminary finding. Therefore, for this final determination, we continue to find that Arch’s patented chlorinated isocyanurate tablet is PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10, 2004), and Preliminary Determination. Effective January 1, 2005, chlorinated isocyanurates are also currently classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015 and 2933.69.6021 of the HTSUS. The new subheading 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous & dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid, and subheading 2933.69.6021 covers all other chlorinated isos used as pesticides (bactericides). The subheading 2933.69.6050 covers all other chlorinated isos not used as pesticides. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, Liaison w/ Customs, Customs Unit, regarding Request for HTS Number Update(s) to AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A–570–898). E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 24504 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices 11, 2005) (‘‘Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination’’). Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by the Mandatory Respondents and Sinochem Hebei (i.e., one of the Section A Respondents) for use in our final determination. See the Department’s verification reports on the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Jiheng, Nanning, and Sinochem Hebei. For all verified companies, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by the respondents. Period of Investigation The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition (May 14, 2004). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Surrogate Country In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation for the following reasons: (1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) Indian manufacturers produce comparable merchandise, specifically are significant producers of calcium hypochlorite; 5 (3) India provides the best opportunity to use appropriate, publicly available data to value the factors of production. See Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 75297; and see Memorandum to James Doyle, Program Manager, dated July 10, 2004, from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Re: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’), which is on file in CRU. We received no comments from interested parties concerning our selection of India as the surrogate 5 For purposes of the final determination, we have determined that calcium hypochlorite and stable bleaching powder are both comparable to the subject merchandise. The record contains financial reports of Indian manufacturers which are significant producers of comparable merchandise. See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004, from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 2, 2005. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 May 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 country. Therefore, we have continued to use India as the surrogate country in the final determination and, accordingly, have calculated normal value using Indian prices to value the respondents’ factors of production, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. For a detailed description of the surrogate values that have changed as a result of comments the Department has received, see the May 2, 2005, Final Surrogate Value Memorandum. Separate Rates In the Preliminary Determination and the Amended Preliminary Determination the Department found that all five companies which provided responses to Section A of the antidumping questionnaire were eligible for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate. For the final determination, we have determined that Tian Yuan is no longer qualified for separate-rate status. For a complete listing of all the companies that received a separate rate, see ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section below. With respect to Tian Yuan, as discussed below, the Department applied adverse facts available, because it refused to allow the Department to conduct verification of its submitted information. Accordingly, Tian Yuan has not overcome the presumption that it is part of the PRC-wide entity and its entries will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Final Separate Rates Memorandum. See also Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination. The margin we calculated in the Amended Preliminary Determination for the companies receiving a separate rate was 111.03 percent. Because the rates of the selected Mandatory Respondents have changed since the Preliminary Determination and the Amended Preliminary Determination, we have recalculated the rate for Section A Respondents that are eligible for a separate rate. The rate is 137.69 percent. See Memorandum to the File from the Team, Calculation of Section A Rates, dated May 2, 2005. Critical Circumstances For this final determination, we have made no changes to our Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination based on the comments received from the Petitioners on this matter. As such, the Department continues to find that critical circumstances exist for the PRCwide entity, which includes Tian Yuan. Additionally, for this final determination, we continue to find that PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 critical circumstances do not exist with regard to imports of chorinated isocyanurates from the PRC for Jiheng, Nanning, and for the following Section A Respondents: Huaao, Clean Chemical, Sinochem Hebei and Sinochem Shanghai. For further details regarding the Department’s critical circumstances analysis from the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination, see Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated April 4, 2005, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, Regarding the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China -Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances. On April 14, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a case brief on the Department’s Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination. The Petitioners contest the Department’s Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination on the following grounds: (1) March 2004 should be included in the comparison period instead of the base period because the respondents and other U.S. importers had knowledge that an antidumping petition was likely to be filed well before mid-March; (2) the Department should consider seasonality in its critical circumstances analysis because the consumption of the subject merchandise shows a pattern of seasonality; (3) certain off-season months (i.e., July to September) should be excluded from both the base period and the comparison period because of no-shipments or low-shipments in those months; (4) the base period and comparison period should consist of a four-month period rather a seven-month period; and (5) the Department should determine massive shipments for the Section A Respondents by using the same formula used for deriving the massive shipments for the PRC-wide entity. We disagree with the Petitioners’ argument that seasonality exists in this instant case. In this instance, imports of chlorinated isocyanurates are not necessarily dominated by seasonality. Our analysis of the shipment data for Jiheng, Nanning, and PRC as a whole show no clear seasonal patterns for the three year period between 2002 and 2004. In certain circumstances, the peak month of shipment in one year coincided with the trough month of shipment in another year. Therefore, we continued not to consider seasonal trend as a factor in the final determination. We also did not E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 24505 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices eliminate any ‘‘off-peak’’ months from our analysis, as suggested by the Petitioners. After considering the Petitioners’ arguments concerning the appropriate comparison period, our analysis shows that we obtain the same conclusion regarding whether there are massive imports for Jiheng, Nanning, the Section A Respondents, and the China-wide entity, regardless of whether we use March 2004 as the knowledge month, as suggested by the Petitioners, or use May 2004 as the knowledge month, in which this proceeding was filed. Finally, we disagree with the Petitioners that massive shipments for the Section A Respondents should be determined using the same formula as used for deriving the massive shipments for the PRC-wide entity. As discussed below, the PRC-wide entity refers to those exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC that did not respond to our antidumping questionnaire and therefore have received an adverse facts available margin and an adverse inference with respect to critical circumstances. By contrast, all Section A Respondents, except Tian Yuan (see Facts Available Section below), have cooperated with the Department and therefore the use of adverse inferences is inappropriate. Therefore, for the final determination, we have continued to use the same methodology as stated in the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination. The PRC-Wide Rate Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a non market-economy (‘‘NME’’) country are subject to government control and because only the companies listed under the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). See also PRC Shrimp. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from the respondents which are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section below (except as noted). The information used to calculate this PRC-wide rate is based on a calculated margin derived from information obtained in the course of the investigation and placed on the record of this proceeding. In this case, we have applied a rate of 285.63 VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 May 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 percent, which is equal to the actual, calculated rate for one of the mandatory respondents, Nanning. Facts Available For the final determination, the Department is applying adverse facts available to Tian Yuan because Tian Yuan decided to terminate its participation in this investigation and declined verification of its Section A responses. See Tian Yuan’s letter dated January 13, 2005. 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 or the Commission under this title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for 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 and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Furthermore, Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if a party has failed to act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department’s request for information, the Department may apply an adverse inference. In this case, Tian Yuan unilaterally decided to terminate its participation in this investigation and declined verification of its Section A responses shortly before the Department’s scheduled verification. Tian Yuan’s failure to participate in the Department’s verification disallowed the Department to examine the accuracy and completeness of its Section A responses and, therefore, has significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, we are using facts available, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, Tian Yuan has failed to act to the best of its ability by refusing the Department’s scheduled verification. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we also find that the use of adverse facts available is warranted. For purposes of this final determination, we find that Tian Yuan does not qualify for a separate rate and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate, which is based on adverse facts available. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our findings at verification, additional information placed on the PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 record of this investigation, and analysis of comments received, we have made adjustments to the calculation methodology for the final dumping margins in this proceeding. For discussion of the company-specific changes made since the preliminary determination to the final margin programs, see Final Analysis Memorandum for Jiheng and Final Analysis Memorandum for Nanning. Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not Selected For those exporters who responded to Section A of the Department’s antidumping questionnaire, established their claim for a separate rate, and had sales of the merchandise under investigation, but were not selected as Mandatory Respondents in this investigation, the Department has calculated a weighted-average margin based on the rates calculated for those exporters that were selected to respond in this investigation, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis or based entirely on adverse facts available. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 24101 (May 11, 2001). Surrogate Values The Department made changes to the surrogate values used to calculate the normal value from the Preliminary Determination. For a complete discussion of the surrogate values, see Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Final Determination Margins We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins exist for the POI: Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the PRC Mandatory Respondents Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. .................................... Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. ............................ PRC-Wide Rate .................... 75.78 285.63 285.63 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the PRC Section A Respondents Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd. ............................ Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. .............. E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 137.69 137.69 24506 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 10, 2005 / Notices Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) Comment 20: Nanning’s Shipment Date. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative Sinochem Hebei Import & protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their Export Corporation ............ 137.69 responsibility concerning the Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation ............ 137.69 disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely Continuation of Suspension of notification of return or destruction of Liquidation APO materials or conversion to judicial In accordance with section protective order is hereby requested. 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing Failure to comply with the regulations the CBP to continue to suspend and the terms of an APO is a liquidation of all entries of subject sanctionable violation. merchandise from Jiheng, Nanning, the This determination is issued and four remaining Section A Respondents published in accordance with sections (i.e., Huaao, Clean Chemical, Sinochem Hebei and Sinochem Shanghai), that are 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 2, 2005. entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the Joseph A. Spetrini, December 16, 2004, the date of Acting Assistant Secretary for Import publication of the Preliminary Administration. Determination. However, with respect to Tian Yuan, and all other PRC exporters, Appendix the Department will continue to direct I. General Comments CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Cyanuric of chlorinated isocyanurates from the Acid. PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from Comment 2: Production of Comparable warehouse, on or after 90 days before Merchandise for Surrogate Financial Ratios. Comment 3: Comparability in Level of the December 16, 2004, the date of Integration for Surrogate Financial Ratios. publication of the Preliminary Comment 4: Methodology for Valuing Determination. These suspension of Caustic Soda and Chlorine Gas. liquidation instructions will remain in Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Electricity. effect until further notice. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:17 May 09, 2005 Jkt 205001 Comment 6: Intermediary Input Byproducts: Hydrogen Gas, Chlorine Gas, Sulfuric Acid, and Ammonia Gas. Comment 7: Reclassification and Adjustments to Certain Financial Data. Comment 8: Timeliness of the Petitioners’ Submission on Grasim’s Annual Report. II. Company-Specific Comments Jiheng Comment 9: Jiheng’s Allocation Methodology for Caustic Soda and Chlorine Gas. Comment 10: Jiheng’s Consumption of Certain Customer-Provided Factors of Production. Comment 11: Revision to Jiheng’s Reported Data for Certain Inputs. Comment 12: The Petitioners’ January 31, 2005, Comment on the Treatment of Jiheng’s By-Products. Comment 13: The Petitioners’ January 31, 2005, Comment on Jiheng’s Packing Labor. Nanning Comment 14: Surrogate Value for Sodium Sulfite. Comment 15: Adjustment to Surrogate Values Used for Calcium Chloride and Sulfuric Acid. Comment 16: Valuation of Hydrogen Gas. Comment 17: Subtracting By-Product Offsets in the Normal Value Calculation. Comment 18: Treatment of Chlorine Tail Gas. Comment 19: Nanning’s Indirect Labor Calculation. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 [FR Doc. E5–2235 Filed 5–9–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–469–814] Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) has determined that chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final Determination of Investigation’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin and Mark Manning, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3936 or (202) 482– 5253, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Case History On December 20, 2004, the Department published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the antidumping investigation of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain. See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From Spain: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 69 FR 75902 (December 20, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). Since the Preliminary Determination, the following events have occurred. On January 12, 2005, the petitioners 1 submitted a request for a public hearing. We conducted verification of the sales and cost questionnaire responses of Aragonesas Delsa S.A. (‘‘Delsa’’), the sole respondent in this investigation, from January 31, 2005, through February 11, 2005. On February 17, 2005, Delsa submitted revised sales data resulting 1 The petitioners in this investigation are Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical Corporation (collectively, the ‘‘petitioners’’). E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24502-24506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2235]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-898]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Brian C. Smith, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3797 or (202) 482-1766, respectively.

Final Determination

    We determine that chlorinated isocyanurates from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (``LTFV'') as provided in section 
735 of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated 
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination 
Margins'' section of this notice.

SUMMARY: On December 16, 2004, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination and 
postponement of the final determination in this case. On February 24, 
2005, the Department published an amended preliminary determination in 
this case. On April 11, 2005, the Department published its partial 
affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determination in this 
case.
    This investigation covers two exporters of chlorinated 
isocyanurates that are Mandatory Respondents \1\ and five Section A 
Respondents.\2\ We invited interested parties to comment on our 
preliminary determination, amended preliminary determination, and 
preliminary critical circumstances determination. Based on our analysis 
of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations 
for the two Mandatory Respondents. As a result of those changes, the 
rate assigned to the Section A Respondents has also changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Jiheng'') and Nanning 
Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``Nanning'').
    \2\ Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (``Huaao''); 
Shanghai Tian Yuan International Trading Co., Ltd., (``Tian Yuan''); 
Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Clean Chemical''); Sinochem 
Hebei Import & Export Corporation (``Sinochem Hebei''); and Sinochem 
Shanghai Import & Export Corporation (``Sinochem Shanghai'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case History

    The Department published its preliminary determination in this 
investigation on December 16, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 75293 (December 16, 2004) (``Preliminary 
Determination''). On February 24, 2005, the Department published an 
amended preliminary determination. See Notice of Amended Preliminary 
Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 
9035 (February 24, 2005) (``Amended Preliminary Determination''). On 
April 11, 2005, the Department published its partial affirmative 
preliminary critical circumstances determination. See Partial 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 
18362 (April 11, 2005) (``Preliminary Critical Circumstances 
Determination'').
    Since the publication of the Preliminary Determination, the 
following events have occurred. The Department conducted verification 
of the two Mandatory Respondents: Jiheng on January 17 through 21, 
2005; Nanning on January 24 through 28, 2005; and a Section A 
Respondent: Sinochem Hebei on January 27 and 28, 2005. See 
``Verification'' Section below for additional information.
    On January 13, 2005, Clearon Corporation and Occidental Chemical 
Corporation (the ``Petitioners''), Jiheng, and Arch Chemicals, Inc. 
(``Arch''), an importer of subject merchandise, requested that the 
Department convene a hearing in this proceeding. On March 4, 2005, the 
Department informed all interested parties of the hearing date and 
location.
    On February 24, 2005, the Department published the Amended 
Preliminary Determination.
    On March 4, 2005, the petitioners filed a critical circumstances 
allegation.
    On March 15, 2005, the Petitioners, BioLab Inc.,\3\ and the two 
Mandatory Respondents submitted case briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On January 27, 2005, BioLab, Inc. (BioLab), a U.S. producer 
of chlorinated isocyanurates, submitted a letter of appearance as an 
interested party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 17, BioLab requested a one-day extension to submit 
rebuttal briefs until March 22, 2005. The Department granted the 
request, and received the rebuttal briefs from parties on March 22, 
2005. On March 24, 2005, the Department convened a public hearing in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(l). Representatives for the two 
Mandatory Respondents, the Petitioners, and BioLab were in attendance. 
On March 29, 2005, Jiheng submitted its revised rebuttal brief.
    On April 11, 2005, the Department published the Preliminary 
Critical Circumstances Determination. On April 14, 2005, the 
Petitioners submitted a case brief on the Department's Preliminary 
Critical Circumstances Determination.

Mandatory Respondents

    On December 10, 2004, Jiheng and Nanning submitted sales 
reconciliation documentation. Jiheng also submitted its response to a 
question addressed in the Department's November 12, 2004, letter 
concerning its reported sulfuric acid data. On December 17, 2004, the 
Department sent a supplemental questionnaire for sales and cost 
reconciliations to Jiheng and Nanning. On December 21, 2004, the 
Department sent another supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng addressing 
certain deficiencies in its November 23, 2004, submission. On December 
22, 2004, Arch Chemicals, an interested party in this proceeding, 
submitted a copy of its July 30, 2004, rebuttal scope comments, 
``Respondent's Reply to Petitioners' Scope Comments,'' which are 
applicable to the dual PRC and Spain antidumping proceedings: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from 
People's Republic of China and Spain, Case Nos. A-570-898 and A-469-
814.
    On December 20, 2004, Jiheng and Nanning submitted ministerial 
error allegations.
    On January 4, 2005, Jiheng submitted its response to the 
Department's December 21, 2004, supplemental questionnaire. On January 
5 and 12, 2005, Jiheng and Nanning submitted their responses to the 
Department's December 17, 2004, sales and cost reconciliations 
questionnaire, respectively.
    On January 10, 2005, Jiheng submitted a revised sales listing and 
factors of

[[Page 24503]]

production database to correct its date of payment and consumption for 
coal and water, respectively. On January 10, 2005, Nanning also 
submitted a revised factors of production listing to replace Attachment 
1 of its November 17, 2004, submission.
    On January 10 and 13, 2005, the Department issued verification 
outlines to Jiheng and Nanning, respectively. On January 14, 2005, the 
Petitioners submitted pre-verification comments regarding Jiheng. On 
January 18, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a letter requesting the 
Department's verification team to examine a company, ``Dry Chlorine 
Corp,'' which they claimed was possibly related to Jiheng. On January 
19, 2005, Jiheng submitted rebuttal comments on the Petitioners' 
January 13, 2005, pre-verification comments. On January 21, 2005, 
Jiheng submitted a revision to its rebuttal comments.
    On January 24, 2005, the Department issued a clerical error 
memorandum. See Memorandum to the File, dated January 24, 2005, from 
the team to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Regarding Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic 
of China (``China''): Analysis of Allegations of Ministerial Errors 
(``Clerical Error Memo'').
    On January 21, 2005, Jiheng and Nanning requested a 17-day 
extension until February 11, 2005, for Nanning and other interested 
parties to submit surrogate value information for consideration in the 
final determination. The Department granted the request on January 24, 
2005.
    On January 27, 2005, Jiheng filed a second ministerial error 
allegation. On January 31, 2005, the petitioners submitted rebuttal 
comments to Jiheng's January 27, 2005, allegation. On February 4, 2005, 
Jiheng submitted a letter requesting that the Department strike from 
the record the petitioners' January 31, 2005, comments. The Department 
amended its Preliminary Determination on February 24, 2005.
    On February 15, 2005, the Petitioners, BioLab, and the two 
Mandatory Respondents submitted surrogate value data. On February 25, 
2005, the petitioners filed additional data.
    On February 16, 2005, the Department received a request from U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to update the HTS numbers in 
the AD/CVD Module associated with this proceeding. See Memorandum to 
James Doyle, Office 9, dated February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, 
Liaison w/Customs, Customs Unit, Regarding Request for HTS Number 
Update(s) to AD/CVD Module Chlorinated Isos (A-570-898).
    On March 2, 2005, the Department released the verification report 
for Jiheng. On March 7, 2005, the Department released the verification 
report for Nanning.
    On March 4, 2005, the Petitioners filed a timely allegation of 
critical circumstances (``critical circumstances petition''). On March 
8 and 14, 2005, the Department requested that Jiheng and Nanning report 
their shipment data of subject merchandise to the United States on a 
monthly basis for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. On March 13, 14, and 17, 
2005, Nanning and Jiheng provided the requested information. On April 
4, 2005, the Department issued its preliminary determination on 
critical circumstances. See Critical Circumstances Preliminary 
Determination.

Section A Respondents

    On December 20, 2004, the Department sent the verification outlines 
to the two selected Section A Respondents, Sinochem Hebei and Tian 
Yuan. On January 3, 2005, Sinochem Hebei submitted a minor correction 
to its quantity and value. On January 13, 2005, Tian Yuan informed the 
Department that it would not participate in verification. On February 
24, 2005, the Department released the verification report for Sinochem 
Hebei.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
dated May 2, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice (``Decision 
Memorandum''). A list of the issues which parties raised and to which 
we respond in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an 
Appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file 
in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room B-
099, and is accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Scope Comments

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Arch's patented 
chlorinated isocyanurate tablet is included within the scope of this 
antidumping duty investigation. See Preliminary Determination. We 
received no further comments from any interested party regarding our 
preliminary finding. Therefore, for this final determination, we 
continue to find that Arch's patented chlorinated isocyanurate tablet 
is included within the scope of this antidumping duty investigation.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are chlorinated 
isocyanurates. Chlorinated isocyanurates are derivatives of cyanuric 
acid, described as chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three 
primary chemical compositions of chlorinated isocyanurates: (1) 
Trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3 (NCO)3), (2) 
sodium dichloroisocyanurate (dihydrate) 
(NaCl2(NCO)3 (2H2O), and (3) sodium 
dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). 
Chlorinated isocyanurates are available in powder, granular, and 
tableted forms. This investigation covers all chlorinated 
isocyanurates.
    Chlorinated isocyanurates are currently classifiable under 
subheadings 2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, and 2933.69.6050 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').\4\ The 
tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium dichloroisocyanurates 
(anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and trichloroisocyanuric acid. The 
tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and 2933.69.6050 represent basket 
categories that includes chlorinated isocyanurates and other compounds 
including an unfused triazine ring. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. Arch's patented 
chlorinated isocyanurates tablet is also included in the scope of this 
investigation. See Scope Comments section, above. See also Partial 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 
18362 (April

[[Page 24504]]

11, 2005) (``Critical Circumstances Preliminary Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the scope section of the Department's initiation and in 
its preliminary determination notices, chlorinated isocyanurates 
were classified under subheading 2933.69.6050 of the HTSUS. (See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China and Spain, 69 FR 
32,488 (June 10, 2004), and Preliminary Determination. Effective 
January 1, 2005, chlorinated isocyanurates are also currently 
classifiable under subheadings 2933.69.6015 and 2933.69.6021 of the 
HTSUS. The new subheading 2933.69.6015 covers sodium 
dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous & dihydrate forms) and 
trichloroisocyanuric acid, and subheading 2933.69.6021 covers all 
other chlorinated isos used as pesticides (bactericides). The 
subheading 2933.69.6050 covers all other chlorinated isos not used 
as pesticides. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Office 9, dated 
February 16, 2005, from Tom Futtner, Liaison w/Customs, Customs 
Unit, regarding Request for HTS Number Update(s) to AD/CVD Module 
Chlorinated Isos (A-570-898).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by the Mandatory Respondents and Sinochem Hebei 
(i.e., one of the Section A Respondents) for use in our final 
determination. See the Department's verification reports on the record 
of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Jiheng, Nanning, and 
Sinochem Hebei. For all verified companies, we used standard 
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting 
and production records, as well as original source documents provided 
by the respondents.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2003, through 
March 31, 2004. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition (May 14, 
2004). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation 
for the following reasons: (1) India is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) Indian manufacturers 
produce comparable merchandise, specifically are significant producers 
of calcium hypochlorite; \5\ (3) India provides the best opportunity to 
use appropriate, publicly available data to value the factors of 
production. See Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 75297; and see 
Memorandum to James Doyle, Program Manager, dated July 10, 2004, from 
Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Re: Antidumping Duty 
Investigation on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic 
of China (``Surrogate Country Memo''), which is on file in CRU. We 
received no comments from interested parties concerning our selection 
of India as the surrogate country. Therefore, we have continued to use 
India as the surrogate country in the final determination and, 
accordingly, have calculated normal value using Indian prices to value 
the respondents' factors of production, when available and appropriate. 
We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information 
wherever possible. For a detailed description of the surrogate values 
that have changed as a result of comments the Department has received, 
see the May 2, 2005, Final Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the final determination, we have determined 
that calcium hypochlorite and stable bleaching powder are both 
comparable to the subject merchandise. The record contains financial 
reports of Indian manufacturers which are significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 
Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 
October 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004, from Barbara E. Tillman, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to 
Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, dated May 2, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Preliminary Determination and the Amended Preliminary 
Determination the Department found that all five companies which 
provided responses to Section A of the antidumping questionnaire were 
eligible for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate. For the final 
determination, we have determined that Tian Yuan is no longer qualified 
for separate-rate status. For a complete listing of all the companies 
that received a separate rate, see ``Final Determination Margins'' 
section below.
    With respect to Tian Yuan, as discussed below, the Department 
applied adverse facts available, because it refused to allow the 
Department to conduct verification of its submitted information. 
Accordingly, Tian Yuan has not overcome the presumption that it is part 
of the PRC-wide entity and its entries will be subject to the PRC-wide 
rate. See Final Separate Rates Memorandum. See also Critical 
Circumstances Preliminary Determination.
    The margin we calculated in the Amended Preliminary Determination 
for the companies receiving a separate rate was 111.03 percent. Because 
the rates of the selected Mandatory Respondents have changed since the 
Preliminary Determination and the Amended Preliminary Determination, we 
have recalculated the rate for Section A Respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate. The rate is 137.69 percent. See Memorandum to the 
File from the Team, Calculation of Section A Rates, dated May 2, 2005.

Critical Circumstances

    For this final determination, we have made no changes to our 
Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination based on the comments 
received from the Petitioners on this matter. As such, the Department 
continues to find that critical circumstances exist for the PRC-wide 
entity, which includes Tian Yuan. Additionally, for this final 
determination, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not 
exist with regard to imports of chorinated isocyanurates from the PRC 
for Jiheng, Nanning, and for the following Section A Respondents: 
Huaao, Clean Chemical, Sinochem Hebei and Sinochem Shanghai. For 
further details regarding the Department's critical circumstances 
analysis from the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination, see 
Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated April 4, 2005, from James C. Doyle, Office 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, Regarding 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from 
the People's Republic of China -Partial Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances.
    On April 14, 2005, the Petitioners submitted a case brief on the 
Department's Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination. The 
Petitioners contest the Department's Preliminary Critical Circumstances 
Determination on the following grounds: (1) March 2004 should be 
included in the comparison period instead of the base period because 
the respondents and other U.S. importers had knowledge that an 
antidumping petition was likely to be filed well before mid-March; (2) 
the Department should consider seasonality in its critical 
circumstances analysis because the consumption of the subject 
merchandise shows a pattern of seasonality; (3) certain off-season 
months (i.e., July to September) should be excluded from both the base 
period and the comparison period because of no-shipments or low-
shipments in those months; (4) the base period and comparison period 
should consist of a four-month period rather a seven-month period; and 
(5) the Department should determine massive shipments for the Section A 
Respondents by using the same formula used for deriving the massive 
shipments for the PRC-wide entity.
    We disagree with the Petitioners' argument that seasonality exists 
in this instant case. In this instance, imports of chlorinated 
isocyanurates are not necessarily dominated by seasonality. Our 
analysis of the shipment data for Jiheng, Nanning, and PRC as a whole 
show no clear seasonal patterns for the three year period between 2002 
and 2004. In certain circumstances, the peak month of shipment in one 
year coincided with the trough month of shipment in another year. 
Therefore, we continued not to consider seasonal trend as a factor in 
the final determination. We also did not

[[Page 24505]]

eliminate any ``off-peak'' months from our analysis, as suggested by 
the Petitioners.
    After considering the Petitioners' arguments concerning the 
appropriate comparison period, our analysis shows that we obtain the 
same conclusion regarding whether there are massive imports for Jiheng, 
Nanning, the Section A Respondents, and the China-wide entity, 
regardless of whether we use March 2004 as the knowledge month, as 
suggested by the Petitioners, or use May 2004 as the knowledge month, 
in which this proceeding was filed.
    Finally, we disagree with the Petitioners that massive shipments 
for the Section A Respondents should be determined using the same 
formula as used for deriving the massive shipments for the PRC-wide 
entity. As discussed below, the PRC-wide entity refers to those 
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC that did not respond to 
our antidumping questionnaire and therefore have received an adverse 
facts available margin and an adverse inference with respect to 
critical circumstances. By contrast, all Section A Respondents, except 
Tian Yuan (see Facts Available Section below), have cooperated with the 
Department and therefore the use of adverse inferences is 
inappropriate. Therefore, for the final determination, we have 
continued to use the same methodology as stated in the Preliminary 
Critical Circumstances Determination.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a 
non market-economy (``NME'') country are subject to government control 
and because only the companies listed under the ``Final Determination 
Margins'' section below have overcome that presumption, we are applying 
a single antidumping rate--the PRC-wide rate--to all other exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate 
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). See also PRC Shrimp. The PRC-wide 
rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries 
from the respondents which are listed in the ``Final Determination 
Margins'' section below (except as noted). The information used to 
calculate this PRC-wide rate is based on a calculated margin derived 
from information obtained in the course of the investigation and placed 
on the record of this proceeding. In this case, we have applied a rate 
of 285.63 percent, which is equal to the actual, calculated rate for 
one of the mandatory respondents, Nanning.

Facts Available

    For the final determination, the Department is applying adverse 
facts available to Tian Yuan because Tian Yuan decided to terminate its 
participation in this investigation and declined verification of its 
Section A responses. See Tian Yuan's letter dated January 13, 2005.
    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 or the Commission under this title, (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for 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 and the Commission shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title. Furthermore, Section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that, if a party has failed to act to the best of its ability 
to comply with the Department's request for information, the Department 
may apply an adverse inference.
    In this case, Tian Yuan unilaterally decided to terminate its 
participation in this investigation and declined verification of its 
Section A responses shortly before the Department's scheduled 
verification. Tian Yuan's failure to participate in the Department's 
verification disallowed the Department to examine the accuracy and 
completeness of its Section A responses and, therefore, has 
significantly impeded this proceeding. Thus, we are using facts 
available, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act. Furthermore, 
Tian Yuan has failed to act to the best of its ability by refusing the 
Department's scheduled verification. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 776(b) of the Act, we also find that the use of adverse facts 
available is warranted. For purposes of this final determination, we 
find that Tian Yuan does not qualify for a separate rate and will be 
subject to the PRC-wide rate, which is based on adverse facts 
available.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification, additional information 
placed on the record of this investigation, and analysis of comments 
received, we have made adjustments to the calculation methodology for 
the final dumping margins in this proceeding. For discussion of the 
company-specific changes made since the preliminary determination to 
the final margin programs, see Final Analysis Memorandum for Jiheng and 
Final Analysis Memorandum for Nanning.

Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not Selected

    For those exporters who responded to Section A of the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire, established their claim for a separate rate, 
and had sales of the merchandise under investigation, but were not 
selected as Mandatory Respondents in this investigation, the Department 
has calculated a weighted-average margin based on the rates calculated 
for those exporters that were selected to respond in this 
investigation, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis or based 
entirely on adverse facts available. Companies receiving this rate are 
identified by name in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 24101 (May 
11, 2001).

Surrogate Values

    The Department made changes to the surrogate values used to 
calculate the normal value from the Preliminary Determination. For a 
complete discussion of the surrogate values, see Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the PRC Mandatory Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd..........................           75.78
Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd......................          285.63
PRC-Wide Rate...........................................          285.63
---------------------------------------------------------
      Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the PRC Section A Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changzhou Clean Chemical Co., Ltd.......................          137.69
Liaocheng Huaao Chemical Industry Co., Ltd..............          137.69

[[Page 24506]]

 
Sinochem Hebei Import & Export Corporation..............          137.69
Sinochem Shanghai Import & Export Corporation...........          137.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of 
subject merchandise from Jiheng, Nanning, the four remaining Section A 
Respondents (i.e., Huaao, Clean Chemical, Sinochem Hebei and Sinochem 
Shanghai), that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the December 16, 2004, the date of publication 
of the Preliminary Determination. However, with respect to Tian Yuan, 
and all other PRC exporters, the Department will continue to direct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of chlorinated isocyanurates from 
the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after 90 
days before the December 16, 2004, the date of publication of the 
Preliminary Determination. These suspension of liquidation instructions 
will remain in effect until further notice.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final 
determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of 
the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic 
industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with 
material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC 
determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not 
exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will 
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    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 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

     Dated: May 2, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

I. General Comments

    Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Cyanuric Acid.
    Comment 2: Production of Comparable Merchandise for Surrogate 
Financial Ratios.
    Comment 3: Comparability in Level of Integration for Surrogate 
Financial Ratios.
    Comment 4: Methodology for Valuing Caustic Soda and Chlorine 
Gas.
    Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Electricity.
    Comment 6: Intermediary Input By-products: Hydrogen Gas, 
Chlorine Gas, Sulfuric Acid, and Ammonia Gas.
    Comment 7: Reclassification and Adjustments to Certain Financial 
Data.
    Comment 8: Timeliness of the Petitioners' Submission on Grasim's 
Annual Report.

II. Company-Specific Comments

Jiheng

    Comment 9: Jiheng's Allocation Methodology for Caustic Soda and 
Chlorine Gas.
    Comment 10: Jiheng's Consumption of Certain Customer-Provided 
Factors of Production.
    Comment 11: Revision to Jiheng's Reported Data for Certain 
Inputs.
    Comment 12: The Petitioners' January 31, 2005, Comment on the 
Treatment of Jiheng's By-Products.
    Comment 13: The Petitioners' January 31, 2005, Comment on 
Jiheng's Packing Labor.

Nanning

    Comment 14: Surrogate Value for Sodium Sulfite.
    Comment 15: Adjustment to Surrogate Values Used for Calcium 
Chloride and Sulfuric Acid.
    Comment 16: Valuation of Hydrogen Gas.
    Comment 17: Subtracting By-Product Offsets in the Normal Value 
Calculation.
    Comment 18: Treatment of Chlorine Tail Gas.
    Comment 19: Nanning's Indirect Labor Calculation.
    Comment 20: Nanning's Shipment Date.

[FR Doc. E5-2235 Filed 5-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P