Saccharin From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 45657-45665 [E5-4252]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45657-45665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-878]


Saccharin From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
saccharin from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the 
period December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004. We have preliminarily 
determined that sales have been made below normal value. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period 
of review (``POR'') for which the importer-specific assessment rates 
are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blanche Ziv or Steve Williams, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4207 and (202) 482-4619, respectively.

Background

    On July 9, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China, 
68 FR 40906 (July 9, 2003). On July 1, 2004, the Department published a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on saccharin from the PRC for the period 
December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 
2004). On July 26, 2004, Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. 
(``Shanghai Fortune''), an exporter and producer of subject 
merchandise,

[[Page 45658]]

requested an administrative review of its sale(s) to the United States 
during the POR. On July 30, 2004, PMC Specialities Group, Inc. (``the 
petitioner'') requested an administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(b) of the following nine companies: Suzhou Fine Chemicals Group 
Co. (``Suzhou Chemicals''), Shanghai Fortune, Kaifeng Xinghua Fine 
Chemical Factory (``Kaifeng Chemical''), Productos Aditivos, S.A. 
(``Productos Aditivos''), Kenko Corporation, Tianjin North Food, 
Tianjin Changjie Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Changjie''), Daiwa Kenko 
Company Limited (``Daiwa Kenko''), and Beta Udyog Ltd. (``Beta 
Udyog''). On August 30, 2004, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of saccharin from the PRC for the period December 
27, 2002, through June 30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 69 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004).
    On March 24, 2005, the Department published a notice in the Federal 
Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review 
until July 31, 2005.\1\ See Saccharin From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 70 FR 15066 (March 24, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because the due date (i.e., July 31, 2005) for these 
preliminary results falls on a Sunday, the actual date of signature 
is extended to the next business day (i.e., August 1, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 8, 2005, the Department requested from CBP copies of all 
customs documents pertaining to the entry of saccharin from the PRC 
exported by Shanghai Fortune during the POR. See the ``Request for U.S. 
Entry Documents--Saccharin from the People's Republic of China 
(A570878002)'' memorandum dated April 8, 2005, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room B-099 of the main Department 
building.
    On May 17, 2005, we received documentation from CBP regarding our 
April 8, 2005, request for Shanghai Fortune's entry information. On 
June 21, 2005, we placed on the record the entry documentation received 
from CBP in response to our April 8, 2005, request for information on 
the shipment of saccharin from the PRC exported by Shanghai Fortune 
during the POR. See the ``Results of Request for Assistance from 
Customs and Border Protection on U.S. Entry Documents'' memorandum 
dated June 21, 2005, which is on file in the CRU.

Respondents

    On September 1, 2004, we issued an antidumping duty questionnaire 
to Suzhou Chemicals, Shanghai Fortune, Kaifeng Chemical, Productos 
Aditivos, Kenko Corporation, Tianjin North Food, Tianjin Changjie, and 
Beta Udyog.\2\ We confirmed that all parties named above signed for and 
received our mailing of the antidumping duty questionnaires. See the 
``Issuing antidumping questionnaire to respondents without legal 
counsel'' memorandum dated December 8, 2004 (``Receipt Confirmation 
Memo''), which is on file in the CRU. Because we did not receive a 
response to the antidumping duty questionnaire, the Department issued 
letters on November 18, 2004, and March 15, 2005 to Suzhou Chemicals, 
Tianjin Changjie, Beta Udyog, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food, 
notifying these companies of the consequences of not responding to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin 
Changjie, Beta Udyog, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food did not 
respond to the Department's questionnaire or to the Department's 
warning letter. See the ``The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise 
Available'' section below for further information regarding these 
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We did not send a questionnaire to Daiwa-Kenko because of 
its affiliation with Shanghai Fortune, identified during the 
investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People's Republic of China, 68 
FR 27530 (May 30, 2003) (``LTFV Investigation'') and the 
``Investigation of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China for 
the period of January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002; Analysis of 
Affiliation for Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.'' memorandum 
dated December 18, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shanghai Fortune

    On October 21, 2004, Shanghai Fortune submitted its response to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Fortune on January 24 and 28, 
April 13, May 13, June 14, July 7 and 22, 2005. Shanghai Fortune 
submitted responses to these supplemental questionnaires on February 8 
and 18, April 28, May 27, June 21, July 12 and 26, 2005. The Department 
also issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Fortune's U.S. 
customer, Richwell Group, Inc. (``Richwell'') on April 18, 2005. 
Richwell submitted a response to this supplemental questionnaire on 
April 25, 2005.

Daiwa-Kenko

    On February 2, 2005, we sent an antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Daiwa-Kenko to confirm its affiliation with Shanghai Fortune and its 
operating status with respect to the merchandise under review. 
Acknowledging its affiliation with Daiwa-Kenko, Shanghai Fortune 
responded to the Department's questionnaire on behalf of Daiwa-Kenko on 
March 3, 2005. Thus, for the purpose of these preliminary results, we 
continue to find Daiwa-Kenko and Shanghai Fortune affiliated pursuant 
to section 771(33)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(g), Shanghai Fortune certified that 
Daiwa-Kenko did not manufacture, purchase, sell or export shipments of 
the subject merchandise during the POR.

Kenko Corporation and Productos Aditivos

    In December 2004, we received notification from Kenko Corporation 
(located in Japan) and Productos Aditivos (located in Spain), asserting 
that the merchandise they exported to the United States during the POR 
was not of PRC origin. See the ``Cooperative pro se Respondents Located 
in Japan and Spain'' memorandum dated December 8, 2004, which is on 
file in the CRU. On December 16, 2004, we issued modified 
questionnaires to Kenko Corporation and Productos Aditivos requesting 
certain information regarding each company's corporate structure and 
affiliations, as well as certifications regarding the origin of their 
merchandise.
    We received a response to our modified questionnaire from Productos 
Aditivos on January 5, 2005. In its response, Productos Aditivos stated 
that all of its sales of subject merchandise sold to the United States 
during the POR were produced by its own production facilities in Spain. 
As such, it had no sales of PRC saccharin subject to the antidumping 
duty order and to this review. On July 5, 2005, Productos Aditivos 
certified that the information submitted in its December 30, 2005, 
submission was accurate in accordance with section 351.303(g) of the 
Department's regulations.
    On February 17, 2005, we received a response to our modified 
questionnaire from Kenko Corporation demonstrating that its merchandise 
sold to the United States during the POR was of Japanese origin and 
thus not subject to the antidumping duty order on saccharin from the 
PRC and to this review. On July 5, 2005, Kenko Corporation certified 
that the information submitted in its February 17, 2005, submission was 
accurate in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(g).

[[Page 45659]]

Period of Review

    The POR is December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is saccharin. 
Saccharin is defined as a non-nutritive sweetener used in beverages and 
foods, personal care products such as toothpaste, table top sweeteners, 
and animal feeds. It is also used in metalworking fluids. There are 
four primary chemical compositions of saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin 
(American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (``CAS'') Registry 
128-44-9); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS Registry 6485-
34-3); (3) acid (or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81-07-
2); and (4) research grade saccharin. Most of the U.S.-produced and 
imported grades of saccharin from the PRC are sodium and calcium 
saccharin, which are available in granular, powder, spray-dried powder, 
and liquid forms.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under 
subheading 2925.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') and includes all types of saccharin imported under 
this HTSUS subheading, including research and specialized grades. 
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and the 
customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of 
this order remains dispositive.

Preliminary Partial Rescissions of Administrative Reviews

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined 
that Daiwa-Kenko, Kenko Corporation, and Productos Aditivos did not 
make shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR. In support of these preliminary results, the responses of these 
companies indicate that: (1) Daiwa-Kenko did not manufacture, purchase, 
sell or export shipments of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR; (2) the saccharin exported to the United States 
during the POR by Kenko Corporation was produced by a Japanese 
manufacturer in Japan; and (3) the saccharin exported to the United 
States during the POR by Productos Aditivos was produced by Productos 
Aditivos in Spain. Additionally, we conducted a data query of CBP entry 
information on all saccharin entries made during the POR from Hong 
Kong, Japan, Spain and the PRC to substantiate their claims that and/or 
determine whether they made no shipments of subject merchandise during 
the POR. Based on the data obtained from CBP, we found no information 
indicating that there were other U.S. entries of the subject 
merchandise during the POR from these companies other than the 
information reported to the Department by Daiwa-Kenko, Kenko 
Corporation and Productos Aditivos.
    Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above and based on the results 
of our queries, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative 
review with respect to Daiwa-Kenko, Kenko Corporation and Productos 
Aditivos because we found no evidence that these companies made 
shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the 
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, 
we calculated normal value (``NV'') in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value on the NME 
producer's factors of production, valued in a surrogate market-economy 
country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the factors of 
production, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy 
countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable 
to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed 
under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in the ``Factors 
Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review'' 
memorandum, dated August 1, 2005 (``Factor Valuation Memo''), which is 
on file in the CRU.
    The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See the ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries'' memorandum dated December 16, 2004, which 
is on file in the CRU.
    Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on 
the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. For PRC cases, the 
primary surrogate country has often been India if it is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. In this case, we have found that 
India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See the 
``2002-2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of 
Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 
Country'' memorandum dated April 26, 2005 (``Surrogate Country Memo''), 
which is on file in the CRU.
    The Department is using India as the primary surrogate country, 
and, accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the 
PRC producer's factors of production, when available and appropriate. 
See Surrogate Country Memo and Factor Valuation Memo. We have obtained 
and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value factors of production within 20 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Affiliation-Shanghai Fortune

    In its April 25, 2005, submission, Richwell, Shanghai Fortune's 
U.S. customer, stated that the president and one hundred percent owner 
of the company and the owner and general manager of Shanghai Fortune 
\3\ are cousins. As detailed in our September 1, 2004, original 
questionnaire and in our April 18, 2005, supplemental questionnaire, an 
affiliated person is: (1) A family member; (2) an officer or director 
of an organization and that organization; (3) partners; (4) employers 
and their employees; and (5) any person

[[Page 45660]]

or organization directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding 
with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting 
stock or shares of any organization and that organization. In addition, 
affiliates include: (6) any person who controls any other person and 
that other person; and (7) any two or more persons who directly 
control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, any 
person. See section 771(33) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that the Shanghai Fortune is controlled by a board 
of directors, which is controlled by the owner and general manager 
of Shanghai Fortune.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to find affiliation between companies, the Department must 
find that at least one of the criteria listed above is applicable. 
Here, where each cousin holds one hundred percent ownership in his 
company, we consider each cousin and his company to be affiliated under 
section 771(33)(E) of the Act. Further, we find that each cousin's 
ownership and position in senior management within the two companies 
places him in a position of legal and operational control of the 
company and in a position to impact decisions concerning the 
production, pricing or cost of the subject merchandise. Thus, 
affiliation between the cousins and their respective companies is also 
established under section 771(33)(G) of the Act.
    We also find that Shanghai Fortune and Richwell, by virtue of the 
familial relationships of their owners, are affiliated under section 
771(33)(A) of the Act. Section 771(33)(A) of the Act states that 
``members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the 
whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants'' shall 
be considered affiliated. ``The word `including' in section (A) of 19 
U.S.C. 1677(33) is an indication that Congress did not intend to limit 
the definition of `family' to the members listed in this section.'' See 
Ferro Union 44 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (CIT 1999). The Department has also 
stated that ``we find nothing in the statute to prevent it from 
applying to uncle-nephew relationships, aunt-niece relationships, or 
cousin-cousin relationships.'' See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From the 
Republic of Korea, 66 FR 33526 (June 22, 2001), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Also, where two companies are 
affiliated under section 771(33)(A) of the Act, there is no need to 
address the issue of control.
    See Structural Steel Beams from Korea; Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6837 (February 9, 2005), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Thus, we 
find that Shanghai Fortune and Richwell are affiliated as a consequence 
of the cousin-to-cousin relationship of the owners of his respective 
company in accordance with sections 771(33)(A), (E), and (G) of the 
Act.

Separate Rates

    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all past 
antidumping investigations. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic 
of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000), and Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice 
Concentrate from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 19873 (April 13, 
2000). A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by 
the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there 
is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are 
subject to government control and thus, should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless 
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government 
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to 
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to 
be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
    For the reasons discussed in the section below entitled ``The PRC-
Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available,'' we have determined 
that Suzhou Chemicals, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, Tianjin 
Changjie, and Beta Udyog do not qualify for a separate rate and are 
instead part of the PRC entity.
    Shanghai Fortune provided the requested separate-rate information 
in its responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. 
Accordingly, consistent with Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 
FR 56570 (April 30, 1996), we performed a separate-rates analysis to 
determine whether Shanghai Fortune is independent from government 
control.

A. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; and (2) any 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies.
    Shanghai Fortune reported that the subject merchandise was not 
subject to any government export provisions \4\ or export licensing, 
and was not subject to export quotas during the POR. Shanghai Fortune 
also submitted a copy of its business license. We found no 
inconsistencies with Shanghai Fortune's claims of an absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with its business license. Shanghai 
Fortune submitted copies of statutory and regulatory authority 
establishing the de jure absence of government control over the 
company. Specifically, the Administrative Regulations of the People's 
Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations, 
issued on June 13, 1988, by the State Council of the PRC, and the Law 
of the People's Republic of China of Industrial Enterprises Owned by 
the Whole People, effective August 1, 1998, all placed on the record of 
this review, provide that, to qualify as legal persons, companies must 
have the ``ability to bear civil liability independently'' and the 
right to control and manage their businesses. These regulations also 
state that, as an independent legal entity, a company is responsible 
for its own profits and losses. In prior cases, the Department has 
analyzed these laws and regulations and found that they establish an 
absence of de jure control. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of 
China, 60 FR 56045, 56046 (November 6, 1995). We

[[Page 45661]]

have no information in this proceeding that would cause us to 
reconsider this determination. Thus, we believe that the evidence on 
the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure 
government control based on: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with the exporter's business license; and (2) the legal 
authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Although the respondent states that the Chamber of Commerce 
for Medicines and Health Products Importers and Exporters has 
attempted to prevent dumping through a program that sets a price 
floor and other conditions for exports of saccharin, the Department 
preliminarily determines that this program does not require us to 
deny a separate rate to members of the saccharin industry. The 
Department's separate rate test does not consider, in general, 
macroeconomic/border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are 
imposed to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls 
over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at 
the individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 
Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 
31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically 
considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject 
to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) Whether the 
exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and 
without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.
    Shanghai Fortune reported that it is wholly owned by a foreign 
entity and has asserted the following: (1) There is no government 
participation in setting export prices; (2) sales managers and 
authorized employees have the authority to bind sales contracts; (3) it 
does not have to notify any government authorities of management 
selections; (4) there are no restrictions on the use of export revenue; 
(5) it is responsible for financing its own losses; and (6) it does not 
coordinate prices with other exporters or producers. During our 
analysis of the information on the record, we found no information 
indicating the existence of de facto government control. Consequently, 
we preliminarily find that Shanghai Fortune has met the criteria for 
the application of a separate rate.

The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    All respondents were given the opportunity to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received 
questionnaire responses from Shanghai Fortune,\5\ Kenko Corporation, 
and Productos Aditivos. We have calculated a separate rate for Shanghai 
Fortune. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject 
merchandise except for entries from companies that have received their 
own rate based on the LTFV Investigation. As discussed below, we have 
decided to treat Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, 
Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog as part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted above, Shanghai Fortune also responded on behalf of 
Daiwa-Kenko because of its affiliation with that entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North 
Food, and Beta Udyog did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. 
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 (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this 
title. Furthermore, under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has 
the responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to 
provide requested information, but also to provide a ``full explanation 
and suggested alternative forms.'' Because Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin 
Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog did not 
respond to the questionnaire, we find that, in accordance with sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act, the use of total facts available is 
appropriate. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 
50184 (August 17, 2000).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994). Section 776(b) of 
the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
LTFV Investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record.
    On September 1, 2004, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, 
Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog (located in India). We confirmed 
that the questionnaires we sent to Tianjin Changjie, Beta Udyog, 
Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food were delivered and accepted on 
November 29 and 24, December 8, and November 26, 2004, respectively. 
See Receipt Confirmation Memo. We also confirmed that a representative 
of Suzhou Chemicals picked up its questionnaire from the main Commerce 
building. See id. Because they did not provide responses to the 
Department's questionnaire, the Department is unable to determine 
whether Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, and 
Tianjin North Food are eligible for a separate rate. Thus, Suzhou 
Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, and Tianjin North Food 
have not rebutted the presumption of government control and are 
presumed to be part of the PRC entity.
    As noted above, Beta Udyog (located in India), did not respond to 
the Department's questionnaire. The Department's consistent practice 
has been to require companies, regardless of whether wholly owned by a 
market-economy entity, to respond to the Department's questionnaire. 
Specifically, information requested in the Section A questionnaire is 
required in order for the Department to assess whether a particular 
respondent is entitled to a separate rate. While the Department does 
not conduct a separate-rates test for respondents wholly owned by 
companies outside the PRC, the Department still needs to analyze the 
company's Section A questionnaire response to examine information such 
as whether the company is registered for business in the foreign 
country or the PRC, the ownership interests of each branch of the 
company, the type of working relationship between the exporter, 
producer and other affiliates, and the volume and value of sales that 
were made to the United States during the

[[Page 45662]]

POR. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
67313 (November 17, 2004); Memorandum to James J. Jochum: Untimely 
Section A Questionnaire Submission of Decca Furniture Ltd., dated 
September 16, 2004; and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Certain Folding Gift Boxes from The People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 40974-75 (August 6, 2001); Memorandum to the 
File: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from the People's Republic of China, Untimely Section A 
Questionnaire Submission, dated December 18, 2003. See also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bicycles from the 
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19037 (April 30, 1996). Thus, 
we cannot assess whether Beta Udyog, a company located in India, is 
entitled to a separate rate because it did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. Therefore, Beta Udyog does not qualify for 
a separate rate and is instead part of the PRC entity.
    The PRC entity (including Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie, 
Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog) failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this administrative review, 
thus making the use of an adverse inference appropriate. Therefore, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, as adverse facts available, 
we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC entity the rate of 329.33 
percent, the highest rate determined in the current or any previous 
segment of this proceeding.

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Secondary information is defined in the SAA as ``information 
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or 
review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any 
previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' 
See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value. See id. The SAA also states that 
independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. See id. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    The adverse facts available rate we are applying for the current 
review was corroborated in the LTFV Investigation. See the ``Final 
Determination of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China (PRC): 
Analysis and Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Rate'' memorandum, dated May 
13, 2003, which is on file in the CRU. We find that the rate remains 
contemporaneous with the POR of this review. Finally, the Department 
received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of 
the reliability of the rate calculation itself. See, e.g., Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
68 FR 41304, 41307-08 (July 11, 2003).\6\ Thus, the Department finds 
that the information is reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Department relied on the corroboration memorandum from 
the LTFV Investigation to assess the reliability of the petition 
rate as the basis for an adverse facts available rate in the 
administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are 
present here.
    As the petition rate is both reliable and relevant, and there is no 
information on the record of this review that indicates that this rate 
is invalid or uncharacteristic of the industry, as adverse facts 
available for the PRC-entity (including Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin 
Changjie, Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog), we 
determine that this rate has probative value. Accordingly, we determine 
that this rate, the highest rate from any segment of this 
administrative proceeding (i.e., the calculated rate of 329.33 
percent), is in accord with section 776(c) of the Act, which requires 
that secondary information be corroborated (i.e., have probative 
value). As a result, the Department determines that the petition rate 
is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may 
reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity based on each of these 
respondent's failure to cooperate to the best of its ability in this 
administrative review as a total adverse facts available rate.
    Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department will consider 
all margins on the record at the time of the final results for the 
purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin based on total 
adverse facts available. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate 
From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000).

Date of Sale

    In its October 21, 2004, questionnaire response to the Department's 
antidumping duty questionnaire, Shanghai Fortune reported that its date 
of sale (i.e., the date upon which the material terms of sale were 
established) was the date of its sales contract (i.e., March 3, 2004) 
which occurred within the POR. Based on our review of the information 
on the record regarding Shangahi Fortune's relationship with its U.S. 
customer, we determined that Shanghai Fortune and its U.S. customer are 
affiliated under section 771(33) of the Act. See the ``Affiliation-
Shanghai Fortune'' section of this notice for further information.
    Accordingly, we are reviewing the first sale made by Shanghai 
Fortune's U.S. affiliate to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States in accordance with section 772(b) of the

[[Page 45663]]

Act. See the ``Constructed Export Price'' (``CEP'') section of this 
notice for further information. Shanghai Fortune reported that the date 
of this sale by its U.S. affiliate to the first unaffiliated purchaser 
(i.e., the date the material terms of sale were established) was the 
date of invoice (i.e., December 16, 2004) which occurred after the 
POR.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Shanghai Fortune's May 27, 2005, Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response at Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act states that a dumping 
calculation should be performed for each entry during the POR, 19 CFR 
351.213(e) gives the Department flexibility in this regard by stating 
that the review can be based on entries, exports, or sales. Indeed, the 
Department's normal practice for CEP sales made after importation is to 
examine each transaction that has a date of sale within the POR and to 
liquidate POR entries based on the dumping margin calculated on those 
POR sales. See 19 CFR 351.212 and the preamble to that section of 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27314-15 (May 19, 1997).
    We have also recognized that unique circumstances could lead us to 
base the margin for CEP sales on the sales entered rather than sold 
during the POR. Here, the respondent requesting an administrative 
review of its POR entries had only one entry during the POR, but no POR 
sale upon which to calculate a dumping margin for that entry. Because 
the entry during the POR can be tied to a sale occurring after the end 
of the POR and there are no other U.S. sales during the POR that could 
be considered for examination as a proxy for the post-POR sale, it is 
appropriate to determine the duties to be assessed on this entry based 
on the corresponding sale. Therefore, because the purpose of an 
administrative review is to establish the antidumping duty for entries, 
as well as to establish a new cash deposit rate (see section 751(a) of 
the Act), and we are able to tie the sale occurring after the end of 
the POR to the entry during the POR, we are using this U.S. sale in our 
margin calculation. Thus, we are conducting this review on the basis of 
the date of entry within the POR, and linking the entered subject 
merchandise to the appropriate sale to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
    We will instruct CBP to liquidate the specific entry at the 
calculated rate. If Shanghai Fortune is a respondent in an 
administrative review covering the period July 1, 2004, through June 
30, 2005, we will exclude this U.S. sale from our margin calculation. 
See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products 
from Brazil; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 17406 (April 6, 2005).

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the sale of saccharin to the United States by 
Shanghai Fortune was made at less than NV, we compared CEP to NV, as 
described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we use CEP 
methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred 
after importation of the merchandise into the United States. We 
calculated the CEP for Shanghai Fortune because the sale was made by 
its U.S. affiliate to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. We based CEP on 
the packed FOB \8\ price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The details of the FOB destination are proprietary 
information. Thus, due to the proprietary nature of this data, we 
are unable to provide this information in this preliminary results 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Shanghai Fortune, we made adjustments to the gross unit price 
for foreign inland freight from processing facility to port of exit, 
foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to warehouse, other U.S. 
transportation expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. 
import duties.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in 
the United States, including credit expenses, inventory carrying costs 
and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in 
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    Because some movement expenses were provided by NME companies, we 
valued those charges based on surrogate values in India. See Factor 
Valuation Memo.
    For a more detailed explanation of the company-specific adjustments 
that we made in the calculation of the dumping margins for these 
preliminary results, see the ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Saccharin 
from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., 
Ltd.'' memorandum dated August 1, 2005 (``Shanghai Fortune Analysis 
Memo''), which is on file in the CRU.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) The 
merchandise is exported from a non-market economy country; and (2) the 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. The Department will base NV on factors of production 
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these 
economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production 
costs invalid under our normal methodologies.
    Factors of production include: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
factors of production reported by Shanghai Fortune for materials, 
energy, labor, and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value factors of 
production, but when a producer sources an input from a market economy 
and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department will 
normally value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. 
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). See also Lasko Metal Products v. United 
States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-46 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, when the 
Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices may be 
distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the market-
economy purchase prices and use surrogate values to determine the NV. 
See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''), 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002).
    Shanghai Fortune reported that its international ocean freight was 
sourced from a market economy, but paid for in a non-market-economy 
currency (i.e., RMB). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we did not use 
the actual price paid by Shanghai Fortune for this input because it was 
not paid for in a market-economy currency.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by Shanghai Fortune for the 
POR. To calculate NV, the reported per-unit factor quantities were 
multiplied by

[[Page 45664]]

publicly available Indian surrogate values with the exception of the 
surrogate value for ocean freight, which we obtained from an 
international freight company. In selecting the surrogate values, we 
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to 
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import 
surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the 
reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the 
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 
3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for respondents, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Except as noted below, we valued many of the raw material inputs 
using the weighted-average unit import values derived from Indian 
import statistics as published in the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 
Trade of India (``MSFTI''). See Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Indian 
Import Statistics we obtained were reported in Indian rupees and are 
contemporaneous with the POR. Consistent with the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, we excluded 
Indian import data reported in the MSFTI for Korea, Thailand, and 
Indonesia in our surrogate value calculations. In addition to the 
Indian import statistics data, we used information from the Indian 
trade publication, Indian Chemical Weekly (``ICW''), to value certain 
chemical inputs. Where we could not obtain publicly available 
information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, 
we adjusted the surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index 
(``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund.
    Shanghai Fortune reported that it sourced all of its raw material 
inputs within the PRC. Therefore, we have used Indian import statistics 
or ICW to value each of these inputs. Shanghai Fortune reported that 
during the production process of saccharin, it recovered and recycled 
certain chemical products for resale. However, Shanghai Fortune 
provided no supporting documentation to demonstrate that these by-
products were sold during the POR. The amount of by-products reused or 
sold during the POR is an integral part of the factor calculation for 
by-products. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from Belarus, 68 FR 9055 
(February 27, 2003) (``The Department allows such credits, but only for 
the amount of the by-product/recovery actually sold or reused.''). See 
also Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Saccharin from the People's Republic 
of China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), at Comment 6. For these 
preliminary results, we have not allowed a by-product offset for the 
amounts reported in its responses or for any smaller amount because 
Shanghai Fortune did not demonstrate that any of its sales of by-
products took place during the POR. See Factor Valuation Memorandum and 
Shanghai Fortune Analysis Memo. However, the Department has issued a 
supplemental questionnaire on this issue and will consider any 
additional factually supported information and source documents timely 
submitted by Shanghai Fortune for the final results of this review.
    Energy and Water: To value electricity, we used values from the 
International Energy Agency to calculate a surrogate value in India for 
2000, and adjusted for inflation. No interested parties submitted 
information or comments regarding these surrogate values and the 
Department was unable to find a more contemporaneous surrogate value. 
Because this data was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the 
International Energy Agency 2000 Indian price for inflation. See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum. To value steam coal, we used data obtained from 
the Indian publication, Teri Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (``Teri 
Data''). The Teri Data is publicly available and is contemporaneous 
with the POR. See id. To value water and steam, we used the rates from 
the website maintained by the Maharastra Industrial Development 
Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org/) which shows industrial water 
rates from various areas within the Maharastra Province, India 
(``Maharastra Data''). The Maharastra data is publicly available, and 
is contemporaneous with the POR. See id.
    Labor: We valued labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), using 
the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import 
Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected 
NME Countries, revised in November 2004, https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/
02wages/02wages.html. The source of this wage rate data on the Import 
Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, 
ILO, (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of 
the reported wage rates range from 1996 to 2001. Because this 
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into 
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage 
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. 
See id.
    Packing Materials: We used Indian import statistics to value 
material inputs for packing. See id.
    Movement Expenses: We valued the foreign inland freight rate based 
on an average of truck rates that were published in the Indian 
publication Chemical Weekly during the POR. We valued foreign brokerage 
and handling charges based on an average value calculated in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 66 FR 50406 (October 3, 
2001), Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India: Final Results 
of Antidumping New Shipper Review, 63 FR 25824 (May 11, 1998), and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 67306 (November 17, 
2004). We adjusted data not contemporaneous with the POR when 
appropriate. For ocean freight, we used the rate quotes from the 
website maintained by Maersk Sealand (https://www.maersksealand.com) for 
the movement of containers from the PRC to the west coast of the United 
States. For marine insurance, we relied on rate quotes from RJG 
Consultants (https://www.rjgconsultants.com) dating from the POR for the 
movement of containers from the PRC to the west coast of the United 
States.
    Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and 
Profit: To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the 2003 audited financial statements for 
Atul Limited, an Indian chemical producer that manufactures many of the 
intermediate raw materials used in the production of saccharin and 
utilizes many production processes that are similar to those used in 
the production of saccharin. For a full discussion of the calculation 
of these ratios from Atul Limited's financial statements, see Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.

[[Page 45665]]

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sale(s) as certified by the U.S. Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily find that the following weighted-average dumping 
margins exist for the period December 27, 2002, through June 30, 2004:

                         Saccharin From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
            Producer/manufacturer/exporter               average margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd....................            137.79
PRC-wide entity \9\...................................           329.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The PRC-wide entity includes: Suzhou Chemicals, Tianjin Changjie,
  Kaifeng Chemical, Tianjin North Food, and Beta Udyog.

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d).
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 
Requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's 
name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; 
and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for 
a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing three days after the deadline 
for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly 
to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this 
administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to 
this review. Because Shanghai Fortune reported entered values, for 
these preliminary results we divided the total dumping margins for the 
reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for 
each applicable importer. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this 
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting percentage margin 
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each 
of the applicable importer's/customer's entries during the review 
period.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rate for Shanghai Fortune will be the rate listed in the final results 
of review (except where the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 
percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the 
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published in the LTFV Investigation; (3) the cash-deposit rate for all 
other PRC exporters will be 329.33 percent, the current PRC-wide rate; 
and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all other non-PRC exporters will be 
the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review 
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 
CFR 351.221(b).

    Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4252 Filed 8-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P