Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 7725-7727 [E6-2088]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
economic data for these cases could be
lost.
The economic census is the primary
source of facts about the structure and
functioning of the Nation’s economy
featuring industry and geographic
detail. Economic census statistics and
their derivatives serve as part of the
framework for the national accounts and
provide essential information for
government, business, and the general
public. The Federal government uses
census information as an important part
of the framework for the national
income and product accounts, inputoutput tables, economic indexes, and
other composite measures that serve as
the factual basis for economic policymaking, planning, and program
administration. Further, the census
provides sampling frames and
benchmarks for current surveys of
business which track short-term
economic trends, serve as economic
indicators, and contribute critical source
data for current estimates of gross
domestic product. State and local
governments rely on the economic
census as a unique source of small
geographic area economic statistics for
use in policy-making, planning, and
program administration. Finally,
industry, business, academia, and the
general public use information from the
economic census for evaluating markets;
preparing business plans and making
business decisions; conducting
economic research, including
forecasting and modeling; and
establishing benchmarks for their own
sample surveys.
The failure to collect this information
would result in less reliable source data
and benchmarks reflecting today’s
economy for the national accounts,
input-output tables, and other measures
of economic activity. This would lead to
a substantial degradation in the quality
of these important statistics.
The NC–99026 form will be used to
update the classification codes in the
Business Register. Classification
information obtained from these
establishments will also be included in
the Census Bureau’s County Business
Patterns (CBP) publications. CBP
publications provide annual data on
establishment counts, employment, and
payroll for all sectors of the economy at
national, state, and county levels.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, Not-for-profit institutions.
Frequency: Every 5 years.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C.,
sections 131 and 224.
OMB Desk Officer: Susan Schechter,
(202) 395–5103.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, room 6625, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dhynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk
Officer either by fax (202–395–7245) or
e-mail (susan_schechter@omb.eop.gov).
Dated: February 9, 2006.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E6–2056 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–847]
Persulfates From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the preliminary
results of the antidumping duty
administrative review of persulfates
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘the PRC’’). This review covers one
exporter of the subject merchandise,
Shanghai AJ Import and Export
Corporation (‘‘Shanghai AJ’’). The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) is July 1,
2003, through June 30, 2004. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we
have made certain changes to our
calculations. The final weighted-average
dumping margin for this review is listed
in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section
below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tisha Loeper-Viti or Frances Veith, 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) 482–7425 and (202)
482–4295, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7725
Background
On July 7, 1997, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on persulfates
from the PRC. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Persulfates From the
People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 36259
(July 7, 1997). On July 1, 2004, the
Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on persulfates from the PRC for the
period July 1, 2003, 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 30,
2004, FMC Corporation (FMC), a
domestic producer, requested an
administrative review of Shanghai AJ.
No other interested party submitted a
request for a review. On September 22,
2004, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of the
initiation of the administrative review of
the order on persulfates from the PRC
for the period July 1, 2003, through June
30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004).
On March 25, 2005, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of this review to
August 1, 2005. See Notice of Extension
of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the 2003–2004 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Persulfates
From the People’s Republic of China, 70
FR 15293 (March 25, 2005). The
Department published the preliminary
results on August 10, 2005. See
Persulfates From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 46476 (August 10, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
We invited parties to comment on the
preliminary results of review. See
Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 46480. On
September 23, 2005, the Department
received case briefs from FMC and
Shanghai AJ. On September 30, 2005,
the Department received rebuttal briefs
from FMC and Shanghai AJ. The
Department conducted a public hearing
on October 7, 2005, at the main
Commerce building. On January 12,
2006, we issued a memorandum to all
interested parties requesting comments
regarding a change in the Department’s
calculated regression-based wage rate.
See January 12, 2006, Memorandum
from Tisha Loeper-Viti to the File Re:
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
7726
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
2003–2004 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on
Persulfates from the People’s Republic
of China (PRC): Expected PRC Wage
Rate 2003 Income Data. No parties
provided comments. On February 2,
2006, we issued a letter to all interested
parties requesting comments regarding
changes to the Department’s calculation
of surrogate financial ratios. See
February 2, 2006, letter from Wendy J.
Frankel to All Interested Parties Re:
2003–2004 Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on
Persulfates from the People’s Republic
of China Calculation of Surrogate
Financial Ratios. We received comments
from FMC on February 3, 2006.
Shanghai AJ did not comment on this
issue. The Department has conducted
this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
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.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Separate Rates
Shanghai AJ has requested a separate,
company-specific antidumping duty
rate. In our preliminary results, we
found that Shanghai AJ had met the
criteria for the application of a separate
antidumping duty rate. See Preliminary
Results, 70 FR at 46478. We have not
received any other information since the
preliminary results which would
warrant reconsideration of our separaterates determination with respect to this
company. Therefore, we have assigned
an individual dumping margin to
Shanghai AJ for this administrative
review.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to this administrative review are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘Decision Memo’’) from
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Secretary for Import Administration, to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, dated
February 6, 2006, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues which parties have raised and to
which we have responded, all of which
are in the Decision Memo, is attached to
this notice as an Appendix. The
Decision Memo is a public document
which is on file in the Central Records
Unit in Room B–099 of the main
Commerce Building. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision Memo
can be accessed directly on the Web at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Decision
Memo are identical in content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
For purposes of the final results, we
have made certain changes in the
margin calculation for Shanghai AJ. For
a discussion of these changes, see the
‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the
Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we
determine that the following weightedaverage percentage margin exists for
persulfates from the PRC for the period
July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004:
Manufacturer/exporter
Margin (percent)
Shanghai AJ Import and
Export Corporation ....
36.53
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we have calculated importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to that
importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total value of the sales to
that importer (or customer). Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rate is greater than de minimis
and the respondent has reported reliable
entered values, we applied the
assessment rate to the entered value of
the importer’s/customer’s entries during
the review period. Where an importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis and we do not
have entered values, we calculated a
per-unit assessment rate by aggregating
the dumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
quantity sold to that importer (or
customer). The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
directly to CBP within 15 days of
publication of these final results of
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective for all shipments of
persulfates from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of these final results of
administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for
Shanghai AJ, the cash-deposit rate will
be 36.53 percent; (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above that have separate rates, the
cash-deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) the cash-deposit
rate for all other PRC exporters will be
119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate
established in the less-than-fair-value
investigation; and (4) the cash-deposit
rate for non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise from the PRC will be the
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as the final
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 in the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
Dated: February 6, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
Comments and Responses
Comment 1: Whether to Use Financial
Data from Indian Peroxide Producers to
Derive Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Whether to Include
Financial Data from Gujarat Alkalies
and Chemicals Co., Ltd. to Derive
Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 3: Whether to Include
Employee Benefits in Overhead
Calculation
Comment 4: Surrogate Labor Rate
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Water
Comment 6: Surrogate Value for
Electricity
Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Caustic
Soda
Comment 8: Whether the Department
Should Apply Total Adverse Facts
Available
Comment 9: Whether the Department
Should Disregard as Untimely Certain
Record Information
Comment 10: Whether the Department
Should Reopen the Record to New
Factual Information
Comment 11: Application of Adverse
Facts Available in Preliminary Results
Margin Program
[FR Doc. E6–2088 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–838]
Notice of Second Amended Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products From
Canada
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Constance Handley or Salim
Bhabhrawala, at (202) 482–0631 or (202)
482–1784, respectively; AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 12, 2005, the Department of
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Commerce (the Department) determined
that certain softwood lumber products
from Canada are being sold in the
United States at less than fair value, as
provided in section 751(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada, 70 FR 73437 (December 12,
2005) (Final Results). On January 23,
2006, the Department published its
amended final results. See Notice of
Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada 71 FR 3458.1 On January 25,
2006, The Maritime Lumber Bureau and
certain of its individual members 2
(collectively, the Maritimes) filed a
timely ministerial error allegation
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2). The
petitioner 3 did not rebut this allegation.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are softwood lumber, flooring and
siding (softwood lumber products).
Softwood lumber products include all
products classified under headings
4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and
4409.1020, respectively, of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), and any
softwood lumber, flooring and siding
described below. These softwood
lumber products include:
(1) coniferous wood, sawn or chipped
lengthwise, sliced or peeled,
whether or not planed, sanded or
finger-jointed, of a thickness
exceeding six millimeters;
(2) coniferous wood siding (including
strips and friezes for parquet
flooring, not assembled)
continuously shaped (tongued,
grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded
or the like) along any of its edges or
faces, whether or not planed,
sanded or finger-jointed;
1 In the published amended final results, some of
the margins were mis-stated due to a Federal
Register formatting problem. The Federal Register
published a correction on January 30, 2006. See
Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada: Correction 71 FR
4968 (January 30, 2006).
2 See letter from the Maritimes Lumber Bureau to
the Department, dated January 25, 2006, at Exhibit
A for a list of companies included in the allegation.
3 The petitioner in this case is the Coalition for
Fair Lumber Imports Executive Committee. We note
that during the review, submissions have been
made interchangeably by the petitioner itself and by
the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, a domestic
interested party. For ease of reference, we will use
the term ‘‘petitioner’’ to refer to submissions by
either, although we recognize that the Coalition for
Fair Lumber Imports is not the actual petitioner.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7727
(3) other coniferous wood (including
strips and friezes for parquet
flooring, not assembled)
continuously shaped (tongued,
grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded
or the like) along any of its edges or
faces (other than wood moldings
and wood dowel rods) whether or
not planed, sanded or fingerjointed; and
(4) coniferous wood flooring
(including strips and friezes for
parquet flooring, not assembled)
continuously shaped (tongued,
grooved, rabbeted, chamfered, vjointed, beaded, molded, rounded
or the like) along any of its edges or
faces, whether or not planed,
sanded or finger–jointed.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under investigation is
dispositive. Preliminary scope
exclusions and clarifications were
published in three separate Federal
Register notices.
Softwood lumber products excluded
from the scope:
• trusses and truss kits, properly
classified under HTSUS 4418.90
• I-joist beams
• assembled box spring frames
• pallets and pallet kits, properly
classified under HTSUS 4415.20
• garage doors
• edge–glued wood, properly
classified under HTSUS
4421.90.97.40 (formerly HTSUS
4421.90.98.40)
• properly classified complete door
frames
• properly classified complete
window frames
• properly classified furniture
Softwood lumber products excluded
from the scope only if they meet certain
requirements:
• Stringers (pallet components used
for runners): if they have at least
two notches on the side, positioned
at equal distance from the center, to
properly accommodate forklift
blades, properly classified under
HTSUS 4421.90.97.40 (formerly
HTSUS 4421.90.98.40).
• Box-spring frame kits: if they
contain the following wooden
pieces—two side rails, two end (or
top) rails and varying numbers of
slats. The side rails and the end
rails should be radius-cut at both
ends. The kits should be
individually packaged, they should
contain the exact number of
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7725-7727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2088]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-847]
Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty
administrative review of persulfates from the People's Republic of
China (``the PRC''). This review covers one exporter of the subject
merchandise, Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation (``Shanghai
AJ''). The period of review (``POR'') is July 1, 2003, through June 30,
2004. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
certain changes to our calculations. The final weighted-average dumping
margin for this review is listed in the ``Final Results of Review''
section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tisha Loeper-Viti or Frances Veith,
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-
7425 and (202) 482-4295, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 7, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC. See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Persulfates From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR
36259 (July 7, 1997). On July 1, 2004, the Department published a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on persulfates from the PRC for the period July
1, 2003, 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 30, 2004,
FMC Corporation (FMC), a domestic producer, requested an administrative
review of Shanghai AJ. No other interested party submitted a request
for a review. On September 22, 2004, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of the initiation of the administrative
review of the order on persulfates from the PRC for the period July 1,
2003, through June 30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004).
On March 25, 2005, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results of this
review to August 1, 2005. See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Persulfates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 15293
(March 25, 2005). The Department published the preliminary results on
August 10, 2005. See Persulfates From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
46476 (August 10, 2005) (``Preliminary Results'').
We invited parties to comment on the preliminary results of review.
See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 46480. On September 23, 2005, the
Department received case briefs from FMC and Shanghai AJ. On September
30, 2005, the Department received rebuttal briefs from FMC and Shanghai
AJ. The Department conducted a public hearing on October 7, 2005, at
the main Commerce building. On January 12, 2006, we issued a memorandum
to all interested parties requesting comments regarding a change in the
Department's calculated regression-based wage rate. See January 12,
2006, Memorandum from Tisha Loeper-Viti to the File Re:
[[Page 7726]]
2003-2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Expected PRC
Wage Rate 2003 Income Data. No parties provided comments. On February
2, 2006, we issued a letter to all interested parties requesting
comments regarding changes to the Department's calculation of surrogate
financial ratios. See February 2, 2006, letter from Wendy J. Frankel to
All Interested Parties Re: 2003-2004 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Persulfates from the People's Republic of
China Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios. We received comments
from FMC on February 3, 2006. Shanghai AJ did not comment on this
issue. The Department has conducted this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act'').
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order 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.
Separate Rates
Shanghai AJ has requested a separate, company-specific antidumping
duty rate. In our preliminary results, we found that Shanghai AJ had
met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty
rate. See Preliminary Results, 70 FR at 46478. We have not received any
other information since the preliminary results which would warrant
reconsideration of our separate-rates determination with respect to
this company. Therefore, we have assigned an individual dumping margin
to Shanghai AJ for this administrative review.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``Decision Memo'') from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 6, 2006, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have
raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision
Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memo is a
public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-
099 of the main Commerce Building. In addition, a complete version of
the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision
Memo are identical in content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
For purposes of the final results, we have made certain changes in
the margin calculation for Shanghai AJ. For a discussion of these
changes, see the ``Margin Calculations'' section of the Decision Memo.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we determine that the following
weighted-average percentage margin exists for persulfates from the PRC
for the period July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation........... 36.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total value of
the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and the
respondent has reported reliable entered values, we applied the
assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's
entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and we do not have
entered values, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating
the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that
importer (or customer). The Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication
of these final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all
shipments of persulfates from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)
of the Act: (1) for Shanghai AJ, the cash-deposit rate will be 36.53
percent; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) the cash-deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be
119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the less-than-fair-
value investigation; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice also serves as the final 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 in the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 7727]]
Dated: February 6, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Comments and Responses
Comment 1: Whether to Use Financial Data from Indian Peroxide Producers
to Derive Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Whether to Include Financial Data from Gujarat Alkalies and
Chemicals Co., Ltd. to Derive Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 3: Whether to Include Employee Benefits in Overhead Calculation
Comment 4: Surrogate Labor Rate
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Water
Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Electricity
Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Caustic Soda
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Apply Total Adverse Facts
Available
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Disregard as Untimely Certain
Record Information
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Reopen the Record to New
Factual Information
Comment 11: Application of Adverse Facts Available in Preliminary
Results Margin Program
[FR Doc. E6-2088 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
