Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 46476-46480 [05-15770]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46476-46480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-847)


Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from FMC Corporation (FMC), a 
domestic producer and an interested party in this proceeding, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2003, 
through June 30, 2004. Upon completion of this review, the Department 
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise 
that were exported by the company under review and entered during the 
POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tisha Loeper-Viti at (202) 482-7425 or 
Frances Veith at (202) 482-4295, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 39903). On 
July 30, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), FMC requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of Shanghai AJ 
Import and Export Corporation (Shanghai AJ).
    On September 22, 2004, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of this administrative review (69 FR 56745). On March 25, 
2005, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results 
of this review to August 1, 2005 (70 FR 15293).
    On October 13, 2004, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
Shanghai AJ and its producer, Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., 
Ltd. (Degussa-AJ), collectively Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ. Shanghai AJ/
Degussa-AJ submitted timely responses to the questionnaire in November 
and December 2004. We issued supplemental questionnaires in March, 
April, May, and June 2005, and received timely responses to each from 
Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ.
    On June 10, 2005, FMC submitted publicly available information for 
consideration in valuing the factors of production. Shanghai AJ/
Degussa-AJ submitted information for this purpose on June 20 and 27, 
2005. FMC submitted rebuttal comments on June 29 and July 8, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this review are persulfates, including 
ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for 
these persulfates are, respectively, 
(NH4)2S2O8, 
K2S2O8, and 
Na2S2O8. Potassium persulfates are 
currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.10 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium persulfates are 
classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Ammonium and other 
persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and 
2833.40.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
order is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), we verified information provided by

[[Page 46477]]

Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ. We used standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the producer's and exporter's 
facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. 
The Department conducted the verification at Degussa-AJ's facilities 
near Shanghai from July 4 through July 6, 2005, and at Shanghai AJ's 
facilities in Shanghai from July 7 through July 8, 2005. Our 
verification results are outlined in the verification reports for these 
two companies. See Memorandum to the File Re: Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China 
- Verification of Shanghai AJ Import & Export Corporation and Degussa-
AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd., dated August 1, 2005.

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(AFA) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a 
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the 
record.
    For the reasons explained below, and pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to 
apply partial AFA for certain U.S. sales that Shanghai AJ failed to 
report. On October 12, 2004, the Department requested that Shanghai AJ 
report all sales of persulfates to the United States during the POR. In 
section A(4)(a) of the October 12, 2004, questionnaire, the Department 
requested that Shanghai AJ describe the date selected as the date of 
sale to be used in the POR. In section C of the questionnaire, the 
Department also requested that Shanghai AJ report the date of sale as 
defined in the Glossary of Terms at Appendix I, which states the 
Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of 
business. On November 17, 2004, and December 1, 2004, Shanghai AJ 
submitted a questionnaire response to both sections A and C and 
responded that its date of sale is the date of invoice.
    On March 17, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire for section A, requesting an explanation for Shanghai 
AJ's reasons for not choosing the date of the short-term contract as 
the date of sale, given that Shanghai AJ's original submission stated 
that it used short-term contracts and that there were rarely changes 
made to the terms of sale after this date. Shanghai AJ's April 7, 2005, 
response to the March 17, 2005, supplemental first noted that it had 
incorrectly described Shanghai AJ as using short-term contracts and 
that sales were made pursuant to purchase orders. Second, Shanghai AJ's 
response noted that approximately 40 percent of sales transactions 
during the POR experienced changes to quantities, destinations, and/or 
shipping dates between the time of the purchase order and issuance of 
the invoice. Also, Shanghai AJ's response indicated that ``substantial 
terms of sale, especially sales quantity, were finalized at the time 
the commercial invoice was issued. Thus, Shanghai AJ believes the 
invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale pursuant to the 
definition of the date of sale.'' On December 1, 2004, May 6, 2005, and 
June 7, 2005, Shanghai AJ submitted to the Department what it reported 
to be all sales of persulfates sold to the United States during the 
POR, based upon invoice date.
    At the beginning of verification, Shanghai AJ provided the 
Department with its submission of clerical errors and minor 
corrections. However, during verification, the Department discovered 
three sales of persulfates to the United States during the POR which 
were not reported to the Department in either of Shanghai AJ's 
questionnaire responses or its minor corrections.\1\ Shanghai AJ 
explained that it did not report these sales, which it deemed outside 
the POR, because the sales invoices were reissued to a customer who had 
requested that all of its sales invoices be issued the same month as 
the shipment date. In this case, the shipment dates for these three 
sales were outside the POR. However, the original sales invoices were 
clearly dated within the POR and Shanghai AJ recorded these sales in 
its books and records based on the original invoice dates. Moreover, 
the Department verified that Shanghai AJ did not adjust its books and 
records for the reprinting of the sales invoices. Therefore, because 
Shanghai AJ withheld information the Department requested, that is the 
sales in question, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the 
Department is applying facts available to those transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ placed this submission on the record 
on July 6, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, upon having determined to 
apply facts available pursuant to the statutory requirements of the 
Act, the Department may use adverse inferences in selecting among the 
facts otherwise available if the Department determines that the 
respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information from the Department. We have 
determined that Shanghai AJ has not acted to the best of its ability to 
comply with our requests for information in this administrative review.
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the 
``best of its ability'' standard ``requires the respondent to do the 
maximum it is able to do.'' See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 
337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2003) (Nippon Steel). The Department has 
determined that Shanghai AJ did not act to the best of its ability 
because it neither included nor notified the Department in a timely 
manner that it was not including these sales in its filing. This 
information was within Shanghai AJ's control. The company itself 
explained that the U.S. sales date should be based on invoice date. The 
company treated these sales as sales made pursuant to the original 
invoice date. Under these circumstances, it is fully reasonable for the 
Department to expect that Shanghai AJ would be forthcoming with this 
information, and that its failure to do so demonstrates that Shanghai 
AJ failed to put forth the maximum effort. Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 
1382; see also Neuberg Fertigung GmbH v. United States, 797 F.Supp. 
1020, 1024 (CIT 1992) (``{u{time} ltimately it is the respondent's 
responsibility to make sure that {Commerce{time}  understands, and 
correctly uses, any information provided by the respondent.'')
    Section 776(b) of the Act states that AFA may include information 
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous 
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. As 
AFA for the preliminary results, and in accordance with section 776(b), 
the Department is applying the highest

[[Page 46478]]

transaction margin for Shanghai AJ from the current administrative 
review to Shanghai AJ's unreported sales for the preliminary results.

Separate Rates Determination

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative 
reviews. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 
69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in 
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) 
of the Act.
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, 
both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether 
an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in 
light of the criteria 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) (Sparklers); and 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). Under this test, 
exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific 
margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over 
exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto). Evidence 
supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of 
government control over export activities includes: 1) an absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence 
of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether 
an exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government 
and without the approval of a government authority; 2) whether an 
exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of 
losses; 3) whether an exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether an exporter has autonomy 
from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    Based on a review of its responses, and the results of 
verification, we have concluded that Shanghai AJ conducts its export 
activities independently of control from central, provincial or local 
governments in the PRC. Shanghai AJ was established in 1994 as a wholly 
owned subsidiary of Shanghai Ai Jian Corporation (AJ Corp.). AJ Corp is 
a public company listed and traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. 
Shanghai AJ has placed on the record documents to demonstrate the 
absence of de jure control including its business license and the 
business license and a list of the shareholders of AJ Corp., as well as 
copies of the PRC Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative 
Regulations and the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of 
China. Other than limiting Shanghai AJ to activities referenced in its 
business license, we found no restrictive stipulations associated with 
its license. In addition, Article 16 of the PRC Enterprise Legal Person 
Registration Administrative Regulations expressly recognizes the 
independent legal status of every company that possesses its own 
business license, and grants to these enterprises the right to open 
bank accounts, conduct business activities, and sign contracts. The 
Foreign Trade Law grants autonomy to foreign trade operations in 
management decisions and establishes accountability for their own 
profits and losses. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have 
preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for Shanghai AJ.
    With regard to de facto control, Shanghai AJ reported the 
following: (1) it sets prices to the United States through negotiations 
with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any 
government organization; (2) it does not coordinate with other 
exporters to set the price or determine to which market companies sell 
subject merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of Commerce does not 
coordinate the export activities of Shanghai AJ; (4) Shanghai AJ's 
managers have the authority to contractually bind the company to sell 
subject merchandise; (5) the general manager of Shanghai AJ is 
appointed by the managers of AJ Corp., Shanghai AJ's corporate parent; 
(6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; and (7) 
Shanghai AJ's managers ultimately determine the disposition of the 
company's profits and Shanghai AJ has not had a loss on export sales in 
the last two years. Additionally, Shanghai AJ's questionnaire responses 
do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. 
Furthermore, our analysis of Shanghai AJ's questionnaire responses 
reveals no other information indicating government control of export 
activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we 
preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de facto government 
control over Shanghai AJ's export functions and that Shanghai AJ has 
met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

Affiliation

    In its November 7, 2004, submission, Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ 
requested clarification from the Department as to whether Degussa 
Initiators, LLC (Degussa USA), one of Shanghai AJ's U.S. customers, is 
considered an ``affiliate'' under the Department's regulations and 
whether it needed to report Degussa USA's sales of the subject 
merchandise during the POR. On March 17, 2005, the Department requested 
that Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ report Degussa USA's sales. Shanghai AJ/
Degussa-AJ submitted Degussa USA's sales data on April 14 and May 11, 
2005.
    Based upon information on the record, we have determined that 
Shanghai AJ is affiliated with Degussa USA and we have included Degussa 
USA's sales in our margin calculations. For a full discussion of this 
issue, see Memorandum from Charles Riggle to Wendy J. Frankel Re: 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Persulfates from 
the People's Republic of China Affiliation, dated August 1, 2005 
(Affiliation Memo).

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, Export 
Price (EP) or Constructed Export Price (CEP) as defined in sections 
772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act 
defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold 
(or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer 
or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 
the United States, as adjusted under subsection 772(c) of the Act.
    Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the 
subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after 
the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or 
exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under 
subsections 772(c) and (d) of the

[[Page 46479]]

Act. We based CEP on the applicable terms of sale through Degussa USA, 
Shanghai AJ's affiliate in the United States. See Affiliation Memo.
    We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the packed 
prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. 
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we calculated the EP 
and CEP by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
inland freight, warehousing, and duties, where appropriate. We valued 
those movement services provided by market-economy (ME) suppliers and 
paid for in a ME currency, using the actual expenses incurred. We 
valued those movement services provided by NME suppliers using 
surrogate Indian rates. For further discussion of our use of surrogate 
data in an NME proceeding, as well as selection of India as the 
appropriate surrogate country, see the Normal Value and Surrogate 
Values sections of this notice, below.
    Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to 
calculate CEP. Accordingly, where appropriate, we deducted indirect 
selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) and direct 
selling expenses (credit) related to commercial activity in the United 
States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, where applicable, we 
made an adjustment for CEP profit.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine normal value (NV) using a factors-of-
production (FOP) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME 
and 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. Because information on the record does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated 
NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    Because we are using surrogate country FOP prices to determine NV, 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department use values 
from an ME (surrogate) country that is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC and that is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. We have determined that India, 
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are ME countries at a 
comparable level of economic development to that of the PRC. For a 
further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the March 7, 2005, 
memorandum entitled Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, which is 
available in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of 
the main Commerce building. In addition, according to United Nations 
export statistics, we found that India exported 555,210 kilograms of 
comparable merchandise (i.e., persulfates based on HTS number 2833.40) 
in 2003 valued at USD 317,524. See https://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade. 
Therefore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. 
Additionally, we are able to access Indian data that are 
contemporaneous with this POR. As in the previous review of this order, 
we have chosen India as the primary surrogate country and are using 
Indian prices to value the FOPs. See Memorandum from Tisha Loeper-Viti 
to Wendy J. Frankel, Preliminary Valuation of Factors of Production 
(August 1, 2005) (FOP Memo).
    We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India 
that were average non-export values, representative of a range of 
prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. Also, where we have relied upon import 
values, we have excluded imports from NME countries as well as from 
South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department has found that 
South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies. The existence of these subsidies 
provides sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices 
from these countries may be subsidized. See 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 at Comment 
1. Our practice of excluding subsidized prices has been upheld in China 
National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. United States, 293 
F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1136 (CIT 2003).

Surrogate Values

    To value certain material inputs, sulfuric acid and ammonium 
sulfate, we used per-kilogram values obtained from the Indian 
publication Chemical Weekly. We adjusted these values for taxes and to 
account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the 
factory. To value anhydrous ammonia, potassium hydroxide, and caustic 
soda, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from the Monthly 
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI), as published by the 
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and available 
from World Trade Atlas, available at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. We 
adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the 
suppliers and the factory.
    To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from 
International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly 
Statistics (Second Quarter 2003). To value water, we used the Revised 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation water rates for June 1, 
2003, available at https://www.midcindia.com/water_supply. To value 
coal, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from MSFTI and made 
adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers 
and the factory.
    For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC in 
``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,'' available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/.
    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), and profit values, we used the financial statements of two 
Indian producers of hydrogen peroxide, Asian Peroxides Ltd. and 
National Peroxide Ltd.\2\ From this information, we were able to 
determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, 
labor and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus 
overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a 
percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. The Department also 
used financial statements from these two companies in the 2002-2003 
administrative review of persulfates from the PRC. See Persulfates from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 6836 (Feb. 9, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Persulfates From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 
27229 (May 19, 1997), where the Department determined that hydrogen 
peroxide production was comparable to persulfates production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The respondent has placed on the record of the current review the 
financial statements of Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (Gujarat) 
and Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (Hindustan), both producers of 
hydrogen peroxide. We have preliminary determined not to use these 
financial statements. With respect to Hindustan, this company's 
financial

[[Page 46480]]

statements indicate that it meets the definition of a ``sick'' company 
under the Sick Industrial Companies Act of India. It is the 
Department's policy to not use the financial statements of a ``sick'' 
company for calculating any of the surrogate financial ratios. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 
(April 16, 2004). Therefore, we are not using Hindustan's financial 
statements in our calculations. With respect to Gujarat, we find that 
production of the comparable merchandise, hydrogen peroxide, comprises 
only 1.3 percent by volume of the company's total production. The 
Department has not had sufficient time to determine whether the balance 
of Gujarat's production is of merchandise that would also be considered 
comparable to persulfates. For these preliminary results, therefore, we 
have not used Gujarat's financial statements in our calculation of 
surrogate financial ratios for the respondent.
    For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained 
from the MSFTI and made adjustments to account for freight costs 
incurred between the suppliers and the factory.
    To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used an average of the 
brokerage and handling data reported in Essar Steel's February 28, 
2005, public version response submitted in the 2003-2004 antidumping 
duty administrative review of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from India and Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version 
response submitted in the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole 
Violet Pigment 23 from India. To value truck freight, we used the 
freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at https://
www.infreight.com. To value marine insurance, we used a price quote 
obtained from RJG Consultants and available at https://
www.rjgconstultants.com.
    Where necessary, we adjusted the surrogate values to reflect 
inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as 
published on the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) website, available at 
https://www.rbi.org.in. See FOP Memo.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd./Shanghai AJ Import      28.91
 and Export Corporation......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR Sec.  351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to 
comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this 
notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and 
a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties 
submitting written comments provided an additional copy of the public 
version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 
CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the 
publication of this notice or the first workday thereafter. The 
Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days 
from publication of this notice.

Assessment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an 
assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Within 15 
days of the completion of this review, the Department will instruct CBP 
to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject 
merchandise. We have calculated each importer's duty-assessment rate 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. Where 
the assessment rate is above de minimis, the importer-specific rate 
will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of the final results for all shipments of persulfates from the PRC 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) 
for Shanghai AJ, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 
be the company-specific rate established in the final results of the 
review; (2) the cash deposit rates for any other companies that have 
separate rates established in the investigation or a previous 
administrative review of this case, but were not reviewed in this 
proceeding, will not change; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC rate, 119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate 
established in the less than fair value investigation; and (4) for non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. 
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-15770 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S