Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, 35625-35630 [E5-3209]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35625-35630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3209]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-900 and A-580-855]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Diamond Sawblades 
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic 
of Korea

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, Carrie Blozy 
(China) or Mark Manning (Korea), AD/CVD Operations, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207, (202) 482-5403 and (202) 482-5253, 
respectively.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS

The Petitions

    On May 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received petitions on imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof 
(``diamond sawblades'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') 
and the Republic of Korea (``Korea'') filed in proper form by the 
Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers' Coalition (``Petitioner'') on behalf of 
the domestic industry and workers producing diamond sawblades. The 
period of investigation (``POI'') for the PRC is October 1, 2004, 
through March 31, 2005. The POI for Korea is April 1, 2004, through 
March 31, 2005.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''), Petitioner alleged that imports of diamond 
sawblades from the PRC and Korea are being, or are likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of 
section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring 
and threaten to injure an industry in the United States.

Scope of Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are all finished 
circular sawblades, whether slotted or not, with a working part that is 
comprised of a diamond segment or segments, and parts thereof, 
regardless of specification or size, except as specifically excluded 
below. Within the scope of these investigations are semifinished 
diamond sawblades, including diamond sawblade cores and diamond 
sawblade segments. Diamond sawblade cores are circular steel plates, 
whether or not attached to

[[Page 35626]]

non-steel plates, with slots. Diamond sawblade cores are manufactured 
principally, but not exclusively, from alloy steel. A diamond sawblade 
segment consists of a mixture of diamonds (whether natural or 
synthetic, and regardless of the quantity of diamonds) and metal 
powders (including, but not limited to, iron, cobalt, nickel, tungsten 
carbide) that are formed together into a solid shape (from generally, 
but not limited to, a heating and pressing process).
    Sawblades with diamonds directly attached to the core with a resin 
or electroplated bond, which thereby do not contain a diamond segment, 
are not included within the scope of the investigations. Diamond 
sawblades and/or sawblade cores with a thickness of less than 0.025 
inches, or with a thickness greater than 1.1 inches, are excluded from 
the scope of the investigations. Circular steel plates that have a 
cutting edge of non-diamond material, such as external teeth that 
protrude from the outer diameter of the plate, whether or not finished, 
are excluded from the scope of these investigations. Diamond sawblade 
cores with a Rockwell C hardness of less than 25 are excluded from the 
scope of the petition. Diamond sawblades and/or diamond segment(s) with 
diamonds that predominantly have a mesh size number greater than 240 
(such as 250 or 260) are excluded from the scope of the investigations.
    Merchandise subject to these investigations is typically imported 
under heading 8202.39.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). When packaged together as a set for retail 
sale with an item that is separately classified under headings 8202 to 
8205 of the HTSUS, diamond sawblades or parts thereof may be imported 
under heading 8206.00.00.00 of the HTSUS. The tariff classification is 
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
purposes; however, the written description of the scope of these 
investigations is dispositive.

Comments on Scope of Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with 
Petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which 
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the 
preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period 
for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 
27323 (1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to 
submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this 
initiation notice. Comments should be addressed to Import 
Administration's Central Records Unit in Room 1870, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 
- Attn: Mark Manning. The period of scope consultations is intended to 
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments 
and consult with interested parties prior to the issuance of the 
preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a Petition be filed by 
or on behalf of the domestic industry. In order to determine whether a 
petition has been filed by or on behalf of the industry the Department, 
pursuant to section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, determines whether a 
minimum percentage of the relevant industry supports the Petition. A 
Petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers 
who support the Petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the 
total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 
percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that 
portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the 
Petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if 
the Petition does not establish support of domestic producers or 
workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry 
or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support 
for the Petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or (ii) determine 
industry support using a statistically valid sampling method.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a 
Petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic 
like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''), which is 
responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been 
injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product 
in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC 
must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like 
product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes 
and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the 
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
like product, such differences do not render the decision of either 
agency contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 
688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988).
    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petition.
    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer 
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the 
investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted in 
the Petitions, we have determined there is a single domestic like 
product, diamond sawblades, which is defined further in the ``Scope of 
the Investigations'' section above, and we have analyzed industry 
support in terms of that domestic like product.
    Based on information provided in the Petitions, the share of total 
estimated U.S. production of the domestic like product in calendar year 
2004 represented by Petitioner did not account for more than 50 percent 
of the total production of the domestic like product. Therefore, in 
accordance with 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, we polled the industry. See 
Notice of Request for Information and Extension of the Deadline for 
Determining the Adequacy of the Petitions for: Diamond Sawblades and 
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China and the Republic of 
Korea, 70 FR 29478 (May 23, 2005).
    On May 18, 20, 23, and 25, 2005, we issued polling questionnaires 
to all known producers of diamond sawblades identified in the 
Petitions, submission from other interested parties, and found on the 
internet by the Department. The questionnaires are on file in the 
Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in room B-099 of the main Department of 
Commerce building. Additionally, the questionnaires were available on 
the Import Administration website. We requested that each company 
complete the polling questionnaire and certify their responses by 
faxing their responses to the Department by the due date. Late 
responses were not included in our analysis. For a detailed discussion 
of the

[[Page 35627]]

responses received please see the Initiation Checklists at Attachment 
I.
    Our analysis of the data indicates that the domestic producers of 
diamond sawblades who support the Petitions account for at least 25 
percent of the total production of the domestic like product and more 
than 50 percent of the production (by U.S. dollar sales value) of the 
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry 
expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition. See Initiation 
Checklist at Attachment I. Accordingly, the Department determines that 
the industry support requirements of section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
have been met. Therefore, the Department determines that Petitioner 
filed these petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is 
an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(F) of the Act and it 
has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the 
antidumping investigations that it is requesting the Department 
initiate. See Initiation Checklists at Attachment I (Industry Support).

U.S. Price and Normal Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate these investigations on Korea and the PRC. The sources of data 
for the deductions and adjustments relating to the U.S. price, home-
market price (Korea only) and the factors of production (PRC only) are 
also discussed in the country-specific Initiation Checklist. See Korea 
Initiation Checklist and PRC Initiation Checklist. Should the need 
arise to use any of this information as facts available under section 
776 of the Act in our preliminary or final determinations, we may 
reexamine the information and revise the margin calculations, if 
appropriate.

PRC

Export Price
    Petitioner based export price on a price quotation from a Chinese 
producer/exporter of diamond sawblades. Based on information provided 
by the Petitioner, contained in a price quote sheet from a Chinese 
producer/exporter of diamond sawblades, the Department recalculated the 
price. See proprietary PRC Initiation Checklist for details of 
recalculation. The Department deducted from this price the costs 
associated with exporting and delivering the product, including freight 
expense, inland insurance, and brokerage and handling. The Department 
adjusted this price quotation to the PRC. See proprietary PRC 
Initiation Checklist.
Normal Value
    Petitioner asserted that the PRC is a non-market economy (``NME'') 
and no determination to the contrary has yet been made by the 
Department. In previous investigations, the Department has determined 
that the PRC is a NME. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of 
China, 70 FR 9037 (February 24, 2005), Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005), and Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
70997 (December 8, 2004). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 
the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked 
by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not 
been revoked by the Department and remains in effect for purposes of 
the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the normal value 
(``NV'') of the product is appropriately based on factors of production 
valued in a surrogate market economy country in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all parties 
will have the opportunity to provide relevant information related to 
the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates 
to individual exporters.
    Petitioner selected India as the surrogate country. Petitioner 
argued that, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, India is an 
appropriate surrogate because it is a market-economy country that is at 
a comparable level of economic development to the PRC and is a 
significant producer and exporter of diamond sawblades. See Petition, 
Vol. II at 9 and 10. Based on the information provided by Petitioner, 
we believe that its use of India as a surrogate country is appropriate 
for purposes of initiating this investigation. After the initiation of 
the investigation, we will solicit comments regarding surrogate country 
selection. Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i) of the 
Department=s regulations, interested parties will be provided an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information to value factors 
of production within 40 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.
    Petitioner explained that the production process for diamond 
sawblades takes place in two stages: 1) the production of diamond blade 
cores; and 2) the production of the finished diamond blade, which 
includes the production of diamond segments. Petitioner stated that 
Chinese manufacturers of diamond sawblades may either produce both 
cores and finished blades, or may purchase sawblade cores from other 
Chinese entities. See Petition Vol. II at 12. In building-up the 
factors of production, Petitioner started with a complete core as the 
primary input in finished diamond sawblades.
    Petitioner provided a dumping margin calculation using the 
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C). 
See Petition at Exhibit II-21, see also, June 1, 2005, Amendment to the 
Petition, at Exhibit 3, and June 8, 2005, Amendment to the Petition, at 
Exhibit 4. To determine the quantities of inputs used by the PRC 
producers to produce a finished diamond sawblade, Petitioner relied on 
the production experience and actual consumption rates of a U.S. 
diamond sawblade producer for the period October 2004 through March 
2005. Petitioner stated that the product selected was chosen because it 
is commonly offered for sale by Chinese producers and sold in the 
United States. See Petition Vol. II at 3.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, Petitioner valued 
factors of production, where possible, on reasonably available, public 
surrogate country data. To value certain factors of production, 
Petitioner used official Indian government import statistics, excluding 
those values from countries previously determined by the Department to 
be NME countries and excluding imports into India from Indonesia, Korea 
and Thailand, because the Department has previously excluded prices 
from these countries because they maintain broadly-available, non-
industry specific export subsidies. See Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
    For inputs valued in Indian rupees and not contemporaneous with the 
POI, Petitioner used information from the wholesale price indices 
(``WPI'') in India as published by the International Monetary Fund in 
the International Financial Statistics to determine the appropriate 
adjustments for inflation. In addition, Petitioner made currency 
conversions, where necessary, based on the average rupee/U.S. dollar 
exchange rate for the POI as reported on the Department's website.

[[Page 35628]]

    To value electricity, the Petitioner relied on information 
collected by the International Energy Agency during the year 2000 
concerning prices paid by industrial users. Petitioner revised this 
data to adjust for inflation using the Indian WPI in effect during the 
POI.
    To value cores as an input of finished diamond saw blades, 
Petitioner utilized imports of cores imported into India during the 
period October 2004 through March 2005 as reported by 
www.infodriveindia.com, which is a fee-based website providing Indian 
customs data. See June 8, 2005, Amendment to the Petition at 2. 
Petitioner explained that it excluded from the calculation Indian 
imports of cores with average unit values above Rs. 1500.00 because 
cores above this price point are likely to be larger than the models 
examined in the Petition. We note that the infodrive data submitted by 
Petitioner, which for some observations indicates the size of the 
cores, demonstrates that cores above 1500 Rs are likely to be a larger 
size. Petitioner did not include imports from NME countries and from 
Thailand, Korea, and Indonesia. Petitioner explained that the infodrive 
data is one of the only publicly available data sources for import 
values which permits disaggregation at a detailed level and is the best 
information reasonably available to Petitioner to obtain product 
specific information to value sawblade cores for finished sawblades.
    While Petitioner previously submitted Indian import statistics from 
the Indian Ministry of Commerce publication Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India (``MSFTI'') to value cores, we noted that the 
applicable HTS category (8202.39.00), can include both cores and 
finished diamond sawblades. See June 1, 2005, Amendment to the Petition 
at 2. We find that the use of the MSFTI import data could result in a 
potential under-statement or over-statement of normal value depending 
on the relative composition of cores to other merchandise imported 
under this HTS category. Given: (1) that the record currently contains 
insufficient detail to resolve this potential drawback regarding the 
MSFTI data; (2) that the infodrive data, although it may be incomplete, 
appears to be both specific to the input in question as well as 
contemporaneous; (3) that there is no better data currently on the 
record to value this input; (4) that the statutory standard Petitioner 
bears at initiation involving the provision of data reasonably 
available to it appears to be satisfied by the infodrive data; (5) that 
Petitioner's methodology of disregarding higher-valued importations is 
an inherently conservative approach; and finally, (6) that using either 
the MSFTI or infodrive data source provide adequate evidence of dumping 
at the initiation stage, we find that for initiation purposes in this 
instance, it is appropriate to use Petitioners' submitted infodrive 
data to value cores. However, should the need arise to use the petition 
margin as facts available under section 776 of the Act in our 
preliminary or final determinations, we will re-examine the valuation 
of cores for the purposes of relying on the petition margin.
    The Department calculates and publishes the surrogate values for 
labor to be used in NME cases. Therefore, to value labor, Petitioner 
used a labor rate of $0.93 per hour, in accordance with the 
Department's regulations. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) and Petition Vol. II 
at 20.
    Petitioner calculated surrogate financial ratios (overhead, SG&A 
and profit) using information obtained from the Reserve Bank of India 
publication Reserve Bank of Indian Bulletin published in August 2004, 
for the period 2002-2003. Petitioner stated that it was unable to 
obtain financial reports from an Indian diamond sawblade producer. See 
Petition Vol. II at 22. The Department agrees with Petitioner's 
contention that, in the absence of surrogate financial data for the 
specific subject merchandise, the Department may consider other 
financial data, such as the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. See Heavy 
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Administrative Reviews and Preliminary Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 11934 (March 10, 2005). 
In this case, the Department has accepted the financial information 
from the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the purposes of initiation, 
because these data appear to be the best information on such expenses 
currently available to Petitioner.
    The Department's practice in NME proceedings is to add to surrogate 
values based on import statistics a surrogate freight cost calculated 
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier 
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the Department has adjusted 
Petitioner's NV calculation to remove the raw material freight expense. 
Petitioner was unable to obtain the actual supplier distances to the 
Chinese producer, and instead used the distance from the port of 
exportation to the Chinese company, 265 kilometers, to calculate raw 
material supplier freight expense. As the Petitioner was unable to 
provide reasonably available information to demonstrate that 265 
kilometers was the shorter of the two distances, see May 11, 2005, 
Amendment to the Petition at 7, the Department removed all supplier 
freight expenses from the NV calculation.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, calculated in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated recalculated dumping margin 
for diamond sawblades from the PRC is 164.09 percent.

Korea

Constructed Export Price
    Petitioner based U.S. price on constructed export price (``CEP'') 
because it stated that Korean producers of diamond blades typically 
sell subject merchandise through affiliated trading companies. See 
Volume III of the Petition at page 2. Specifically, Petitioner 
calculated CEP based on offers of diamond sawblades manufactured in 
Korea by Ehwa Diamond Industrial Tool Co., Ltd. (``Ehwa''), a large 
Korean manufacturer of diamond sawblades, and offered for sale in the 
United States by General Tool, Inc. (``General Tool''), Ehwa's U.S. 
sales affiliate. See Supplement to the Petition, dated May 13, 2005 at 
Exhibit 6. Petitioner identified two sizes of diamond sawblades 
commonly sold in the U.S. market and obtained price quotes for each 
size from General Tool. Id. Petitioner calculated net U.S. prices by 
deducting ocean freight/insurance, harbor maintenance tax and 
merchandise processing fee, U.S. domestic freight, imputed credit 
expense, commission fees, and an amount for CEP profit. Id. at Exhibit 
7. The petitioner made no adjustments to CEP for packing expenses. Id. 
at page 20.
    We reviewed Petitioner's data and adjusted its calculation of CEP 
by disallowing the deduction of commission fees from the starting U.S. 
price. Specifically, Petitioner did not adjust NV for commission fees 
because it stated that sales in the Korean market were offered for sale 
directly by Ehwa with no distributor involved. See Volume III of the 
Petition at Exhibit III-13. For CEP sales, Petitioner states that 
General Tool sells sawblades to end-users, distributors, and U.S. 
producers of diamond blades. See Supplement to the Petition, dated May 
13, 2005 at Exhibit 6. Further, Petitioner's U.S.

[[Page 35629]]

price quotes are based upon a negotiation of sales terms between a 
petitioning U.S. company and an employee of General Tool. Id. Based 
upon the affidavit provided in Exhibit 6 of the Supplement to the 
Petition, dated May 13, 2005, it is reasonable to infer that the sales 
offers in the United States were negotiated and offered without the 
benefit of an outside sales agent. Therefore, since the price quotes 
obtained in the Korean market were directly from the Korean 
manufacturer, and the price quotes obtained in the U.S. market were 
directly from the Korean manufacturer's affiliate, the Department is 
disallowing the adjustment for commission fees. See Checklist at 
Attachments IV and V for the re-calculation of CEP and the dumping 
margins.
Normal Value
    To calculate NV, Petitioner provided two price quotes, for two 
different sizes of diamond sawblades, obtained through foreign market 
research regarding products manufactured by Ehwa and offered for sale 
in the Korean market. See Volume III of the Petition at pages 14-15 and 
Exhibit III-13. These sales prices were offered by Ehwa without the 
involvement of a distributor or agent. Id. Petitioner did not deduct 
imputed credit expense from NV due to a business proprietary reason. 
See Korea Initiation Checklist for a discussion of this issue. 
Petitioner made no adjustment to the prices quotes, nor did it adjust 
NV for packing expenses. See Volume III of the Petition at page 15; see 
Supplement to the Petition, dated May 13, 2005 at page 20.
    Based on a comparison of CEP to NV, calculated in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act, the estimated recalculated dumping margin 
for diamond sawblades from Korea is 63.61 percent to 67.59 percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of diamond sawblades from the PRC and Korea are 
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair 
value. Based upon comparisons of export price to the NV, calculated in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated recalculated 
dumping margin for diamond sawblades from the PRC is 164.09 percent. 
Based upon comparisons of CEP to the NV, calculated in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated recalculated dumping margins 
for diamond sawblades from Korea range from 63.61 percent to 67.59 
percent.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    With regard to the PRC and Korea, Petitioner alleges that the U.S. 
industry producing the domestic like product is being materially 
injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the 
individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at 
less than NV. Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition 
is illustrated by the decline in customer base, market share, domestic 
shipments, prices and profit. We have assessed the allegations and 
supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we 
have determined that these allegations are properly supported by 
adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation. 
See Initiation Checklists.

Separate Rates and Quantity and Value Questionnaire

    The Department recently modified the process by which exporters and 
producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. This 
change is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 
and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy 
Bulletin 05.1'') available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Although the 
process has changed, now requiring submission of a separate-rate status 
application, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is 
whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over its export activities) has not changed.
    The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rates 
application are outlined in detail in the application itself, and in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1, which is also available on the Department's 
website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. Regarding 
deadlines, Policy Bulletin 05.1 explains that ``(a)ll applications are 
due sixty calendar days after publication of the initiation notice. 
This deadline applies equally to NME-owned and wholly foreign-owned 
firms for completing the applicable provisions of the application and 
for submitting the required supporting documentation.'' See Policy 
Bulletin 05.1 at page 5.
    The deadline for submitting a separate-rates application applies 
equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign 
sellers who purchase the subject merchandise and export it to the 
United States. Therefore, this notice constitutes public notification 
to all firms eligible to seek separate-rate status in the investigation 
of diamond sawblades from the PRC that they must submit a separate-
rates application within 60 calendar days of the date of publication of 
this initiation notice in the Federal Register. All potential 
respondents should also bear in mind that firms to which the Department 
issues a Quantity and Value (``Q&V'') questionnaire must respond both 
to this questionnaire and to the separate-rates application by the 
respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for a separate-
rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration 
to any separate rate-status application made by parties that were 
issued a Q&V questionnaire by the Department but failed to respond to 
that questionnaire within the established deadline. The particular 
separate-rate status application for this investigation is available on 
the Department's web site https://ia.ita.doc.gov.

Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, 
states:
    ``(w)hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only 
to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in 
its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of 
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents 
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool 
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.''
Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin, at page 6.

[[Page 35630]]

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    Based upon our examination of the Petitions on diamond sawblades 
and parts thereof from the PRC and Korea, we find that these Petitions 
meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are 
initiating antidumping duty investigations to determine whether imports 
of diamond sawblades from the PRC and Korea are being, or are likely to 
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless 
postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 
140 days after the date of these initiations.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the Petition has been provided to the Government of 
the PRC and the Government of Korea.

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of 
our initiations, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date 
on which it receives notice of these initiations, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of diamond sawblades and parts 
thereof from China and Korea are causing material injury, or 
threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 
733(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the 
investigations being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will 
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act.

    Dated: June 13, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-3209 Filed 6-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S