Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 25247-25252 [E7-8581]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices
antidumping duty order on ceratin
preserved mushrooms from the PRC.
See Initiation Notice. On April 17, 2007,
all five companies which requested the
review timely withdrew their requests
for administrative reviews.
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Department will rescind an
administrative review, in whole or in
part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of
initiation. In this case, the companies
listed above withdrew their requests for
administrative reviews of their exports
of certain preserved mushrooms for the
POR, within 90 days from the date of
initiation. No other interested party
requested a review of these companies.
Therefore, the Department is rescinding
this review of the antidumping duty
order on certain preserved mushrooms
from the PRC covering the POR, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries for China Processed
Food Import and Export Company,
COFCO (Zhangzhou) Food Industrial
Co. Ltd., China National Cereals, Oils
and Foodstuffs Import and Export
Corporation, Fujian Yu Xing Fruit and
Vegetable Foodstuff Development Co.,
and Xiamen Jiahua Import and Export
Trading Co., Ltd. Antidumping duties
shall be assessed at rates equal to the
cash deposit of estimated antidumping
duties required at the time of entry, or
withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a 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 assumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and subsequent assessment of
double antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Orders (‘‘APOs’’)
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to APOs of their
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:51 Apr 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under an 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 notice is in accordance with
section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4) of the Department’s
regulations.
Dated: April 26, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–8585 Filed 5–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–878
Saccharin from the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of the
2005–2006 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on saccharin
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’) covering the period July 1, 2005,
through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily
determine that sales of subject
merchandise were made at less than
normal value (‘‘NV’’) by Shanghai
Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai
Fortune’’). 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 all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise exported
by Shanghai Fortune during the period
of review (‘‘POR’’).
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the final results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann
Fornaro or Frances Veith, AD/CVD
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25247
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–3927 or (202) 482–4295,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 9, 2003, the Department
published 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 3, 2006,
the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of this order. See Antidumping
or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding,
or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative
Review, 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006). In
accordance with 19 CFR 351. 213(b)(1),
the following requests were made: (1) on
July 28, 2006, Shanghai Fortune and
Suzhou Fine Chemical Co. Group Ltd.
(‘‘Suzhou Fine Chemical’’), Chinese
exporting producers of subject
merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of their exports; (2) on July 28,
2006, Amgal Chemical Products (1989)
Ltd. (‘‘Amgal’’), an Israeli exporting
producer of sodium saccharin made
from subject merchandise manufactured
in the PRC, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of its exports.
On August 30, 2006, the Department
initiated this administrative review with
respect to Shanghai Fortune, Suzhou
Fine Chemical, and Amgal. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006).
The Department issued antidumping
duty questionnaires to Shanghai
Fortune, Suzhou Fine Chemical, and
Amgal on August 30, 2006.
On September 7, 2006, the Office of
Policy issued a list of five surrogate
countries at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
PRC for the POR. See the Memorandum
from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of
Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office 8, regarding,
‘‘Administrative Review of Saccharin
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries’’ (September 7, 2006) (‘‘Policy
Memorandum’’).
On October 16 and November 14,
2006, Suzhou Fine Chemical and
Amgal, respectively, withdrew their
requests for an administrative review.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
25248
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices
No other party requested an
administrative review of Suzhou Fine
Chemical’s or Amgal’s exports to the
United States.
On October 20, 2006, Shanghai
Fortune submitted its sections A, C, and
D questionnaire response (‘‘ACD–QR’’).
On September 8 and 12, 2006, the
Department invited interested parties to
submit surrogate value (‘‘SV’’)
information and to submit comments on
surrogate country selection. See the
Letter from Blanche Ziv, Program
Manager, Office 8, to All Interested
Parties (September 8, 2006); and Letter
from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager,
Office 8, to All Interested Parties
(September 12, 2006). On November 13,
2006, Shanghai Fortune submitted
publicly available information to value
the factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). No
interested party submitted comments on
the selection of a surrogate country.
The Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Shanghai Fortune on
December 20, 2006, and on February 20,
March 1, and March 14, 2007. Shanghai
Fortune submitted responses to these
supplemental questionnaires on January
17, March 6, March 20, and March 26,
2007, respectively. The Department also
issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Shanghai Fortune’s U.S. customer on
December 21, 2006. The U.S. customer
submitted a response to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire on January 18, 2007.
On December 26, 2006, the
Department published a notice of partial
rescission of this administrative review
with respect to Suzhou Fine Chemical
and Amgal. See Saccharin from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 77382
(December 26, 2006).
On March 23, 2007, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for
issuing its preliminary results of review
until May 2, 2007. See Saccharin from
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
13746 (March 23, 2007).
cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Period of Review
The POR is July 1, 2005, through June
30, 2006.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:51 Apr 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
metalworking fluids. There are four
primary chemical compositions of
saccharin: (1) Sodium saccharin
(American Chemical Society Chemical
Abstract Service (‘‘CAS’’) Registry 128–
44–44); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS
Registry 6485–34–34); (3) acid (or
insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81–
07–07); 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 currently
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 customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
scope of this order remains dispositive.
Non–Market Economy Country Status
Shanghai Fortune did not contest the
Department’s treatment of the PRC as a
non–market economy (‘‘NME’’) country,
and the Department has treated the PRC
as an NME country in all past
antidumping duty investigations and
administrative reviews and continues to
do so in this case. See, e.g., Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509
(December 11, 2006) (‘‘FMTC–Final–04–
05’’); and Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe
Fittings from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
69546 (December 1, 2006) (‘‘Non–
Malleable Pipe’’). No interested party in
this case has argued that we should do
otherwise. Designation as an NME
country remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See Section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV on the NME
producer’s FOPs, 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
FOPs, the Department shall use, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
merchandise. The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section below
and in the Memorandum from Frances
Veith, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program
Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Saccharin from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’ (April 27, 2007)
(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’).
The Department determined that
India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the
Philippines, and Egypt are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development. See Policy
Memorandum. Customarily, we select
an appropriate surrogate country from
the Policy Memorandum based on the
availability and reliability of data from
the countries that are significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
In this case, we found that India is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise. See Memorandum from
Frances Veith, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, through Blanche
Ziv, Program Manager, and Wendy
Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, to the File, ‘‘2005–2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Saccharin from the People’s
Republic of China: Selection of a
Surrogate Country’’ (February 26, 2007)
(‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’).
Accordingly, we selected India as the
primary surrogate country for purposes
of valuing the FOPs in the calculation
of NV because it meets the Department’s
criteria for surrogate country selection.
See Surrogate Country Memorandum
and Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Where Indian data was not available,
the Department calculated the SV using
World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) import
statistics from the Philippines, available
at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The
Philippines import data represents
cumulative values for fiscal year 2005.
We 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 of review.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices
companies within the country are
subject to government control, and thus,
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise subject
to review in an NME country a single
rate unless an exporter can demonstrate
that it is sufficiently independent of
government control to be entitled to a
separate rate. See, e.g., Honey from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 74764, 74765 (December
16, 2005) (unchanged in the final
results);1 and Non–Malleable Pipe, 71
FR at 69548.
We considered whether Shanghai
Fortune, based in the PRC, is eligible for
a separate rate. The Department’s
separate–rate test to determine whether
the exporters are independent from
government control 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. The test
focuses, rather, on controls over the
investment, pricing, and output
decision–making process at the
individual firm level. See, e.g., Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November
17, 1997); and Certain Cut–to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November
19, 1997).
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 select criteria. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20585, 22587
(May 6, 1991); 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).
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’’).
Shanghai Fortune provided company–
specific separate–rate information and
stated that it met the standards for the
1 See Honey from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
34893 (June 16, 2006).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:51 Apr 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
assignment of a separate rate.2 Shanghai
Fortune reported that it is wholly
owned by Fortune Knitting Co., Ltd., a
privately held foreign–owned market
economy entity.3 Therefore, further
separate–rate analysis is not necessary
to determine whether Shanghai
Fortune’s export activities are
independent from government control.
See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and
Chairs from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 38852, at 38853–38855
(July 10, 2006) (‘‘FMTC–Prelim–04–05’’)
(unchanged in the final)4 and Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the
People’s Republic of China, 61 FR
19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996).
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s
regulations states that:
in identifying the date of sale of the
subject merchandise or foreign like
product, the Secretary normally
will use the date of invoice, as
recorded in the exporter or
producer’s records kept in the
normal course of business.
However, the Secretary may use a
date other than the date of invoice
if the Secretary is satisfied that a
different date better reflects the date
on which the exporter or producer
establishes the material terms of
sale.
See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.
v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087,
1090–1093 (CIT 2001) (upholding the
Department’s rebuttable presumption
that invoice date is the appropriate date
of sale). After examining the
questionnaire responses and the sale
documentation placed on the record by
Shanghai Fortune, we preliminarily
determine that invoice date is the most
appropriate date of sale in this review.
We made this determination based on
statements on the record that indicate
that Shanghai Fortune’s invoice
establishes the material terms of sale to
the extent required by our regulations.
See Shanghai Fortune’s ACD–QR at A11
and C12. Nothing on the record of this
review rebuts the presumption that
invoice date should be the date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Shanghai
Fortune’s sale of saccharin to the United
States was made at a price below NV,
we compared Shanghai Fortune’s export
price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the
2 See
ACD-QR at pages A2 through A8.
3 Id.
4 See
PO 00000
FMTC-Final-04-05.
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25249
‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice, pursuant to
section 773 of the Act.
Export Price
Because Shanghai Fortune sold
subject merchandise to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to
importation into the United States and
use of a constructed–export-price
methodology was not otherwise
indicated, we used EP in accordance
with section 772(a) of the Act.
For Shanghai Fortune, we calculated
EP based on the FOB Shanghai port
price to an unaffiliated purchaser. From
this price, we deducted amounts for
foreign inland freight and brokerage and
handling, pursuant to section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See
Memorandum to the File from Ann
Fornaro, International Trade
Compliance Analyst: ‘‘Analysis for the
Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Saccharin from the People’s
Republic of China: Shanghai Fortune
Chemical Co., Ltd.’’ (April 27, 2007)
(‘‘Shanghai Fortune Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum’’).
The Department used two sources to
calculate an SV for domestic brokerage
and handling expenses. The Department
averaged December 2003 through
November 2004 data contained in Essar
Steel’s February 28, 2005, public
version response submitted in the
antidumping duty administrative review
of hot–rolled carbon steel flat products
from India. See Certain Hot–Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From India:
Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 2018, 2022 (January 12,
2006). The Essar Steel data was
averaged with the February 2004
through January 2005 data contained in
Agro Dutch Industries Limited’s (‘‘Agro
Dutch’’) May 24, 2005, public version
response submitted in the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from India. See
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
37757 (June 30, 2005); and FMTC–
Prelim–04–05 at 71 FR 38857 (utilizing
this same data). The brokerage expense
data reported by Essar Steel and Agro
Dutch in their public versions is ranged
data. Essar Steel reported averaged,
ranged values for each reported sale
transaction in its submission, while
Agro Dutch reported an overall
averaged, ranged value for its POR. In
the instant review, the Department first
derived an overall average value from
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
25250
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices
cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Essar Steel’s data. Then the Department
adjusted both source’s overall average
value for inflation. Finally, the
Department derived an SV for brokerage
and handling by calculating an average
from the source’s inflated average value.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum at
Attachment 12.
To value truck freight, we used the
freight rates published by Indian Freight
Exchange, available at https://
www.infreight.com. The truck freight
rates are contemporaneous with the
POR; therefore, we made no adjustments
for inflation. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Attachment 11.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that, in the case of an NME, the
Department shall determine NV using
an 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. The Department will base NV
on FOP 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. Therefore, we
calculated NV based on FOP in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
The FOPs 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 the
FOPs 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 the FOPs, but
when a producer sources an input from
a market economy supplier 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, 1445–1446 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department’s
use of market–based prices to value
certain FOPs). 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 SVs to
determine the NV. See, e.g., Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the
People’s Republic of China; Final
Results of the 1998–1999 Administrative
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:51 Apr 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
Review, Partial Rescission of Review,
and Determination Not to Revoke Order
in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. Shanghai
Fortune reported that a significant
percentage of its consumption of
phthalic anhydride used in the
production of saccharin was purchased
from a market economy and paid for in
a market economy currency. See the
‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section of this
notice, below, for further discussion.
Shanghai Fortune reported that
during the production process of
saccharin, it generates and recycles
certain chemical by–products for
resale.5 However, Shanghai Fortune was
unable to provide documentation
supporting its production and sales of
these by–products during the POR. The
amount of 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),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3 (‘‘The
Department allows such credits, but
only for the amount of the by–product/
recovery actually sold or reused.’’);
Notice of the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Saccharin from the People’s Republic of
China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; and
Saccharin from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative, 71 FR 7515 (February
13, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Therefore, we are not granting a by–
product offset to Shanghai Fortune. For
further details, see Shanghai Fortune
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on the
FOPs reported by Shanghai Fortune for
the POR. We relied on the factor–
specific data submitted by Shanghai
Fortune in its questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaire responses
for purposes of selecting SVs.
To calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per–unit factor–consumption
rates by publicly available Indian SVs
(except as noted below). In selecting the
SVs, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data. As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to
5 See
PO 00000
ACD-QR in Exhibits D-3.
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
render them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to Indian import
SVs 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’).
See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.
3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where
necessary, we adjusted the SVs for
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. For a detailed
description of all SVs used for Shanghai
Fortune, see the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
Except as noted below, we valued raw
material inputs using the July 1, 2005,
through June 30, 2006, weighted–
average unit import values derived from
the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign
Trade of India, as published by the
Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics of the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India and used in the
WTA, available at http:www.gtis.com/
wta.htm. The Indian WTA import data
is reported in rupees and is
contemporaneous with the POR. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at
Attachment 4. We adjusted the SVs to
account for freight costs incurred
between the supplier and respondent.
We used the freight rates published by
Indian Freight Exchange, available at
https://www.infreight.com, to value truck
freight. Because the truck freight rates
are contemporaneous with the POR, we
made no adjustments for inflation.
Furthermore, with regard to the WTA
import–based SVs, for each input value,
we used the average unit value for that
input imported into India from all
countries, with three exceptions. First,
imports from all countries that the
Department has previously determined
to be NME countries were excluded
from the average.6 Second, it is the
Department’s current practice that,
where the facts developed in U.S. or
third–country countervailing duty
findings include the existence of
subsidies that appear to be used
generally (in particular, broadly
available, non–industry-specific export
subsidies), it is reasonable for the
Department to consider that it has
particular and objective evidence to
6 For further information, see Expected NonMarket Economy Wages: Request for Comment on
Calculation Methodology, 70 FR 37761, 37763 (June
30, 2005) (‘‘Wage Rate FR’’).
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices
support a reason to believe or suspect
that prices of the inputs from the
country granting the subsidies may be
subsidized. See Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999
Administrative Review, Partial
Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not to Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the
People’s Republic of China; Final
Results of 1999–2000 Administrative
Review, Partial Rescission of Review,
and Determination Not To Revoke Order
in Part, 66 FR 57420 (Nov. 15, 2001),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; and China
National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp.
v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334,
1339 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the
Federal Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183
(Fed. Cir. 2004). We are also guided by
the statute’s legislative history that
explains that it is not necessary to
conduct a formal investigation to ensure
that such prices are not subsidized. See
H.R. Rep. No. 576 100th Cong., 2. Sess.
590–91 (1988). Rather, the Department
was instructed by Congress to base its
decision on information that is available
to it at the time it is making its
determination. Therefore, we excluded
export prices from Indonesia, South
Korea, Thailand, and India in
calculating the Indian import–based SVs
or in calculating the Philippines
import–based SV. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
Finally, we excluded imports that
were labeled as originating from an
‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average
value because we could not be certain
that they were not from either an NME
or a country with general export
subsidies. For a complete description of
the factor values we used in these
preliminary results, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
To value aqueous ammonia, the
Department used the POR average unit
value for imports into India from all
countries, except as noted above. We
invite parties to submit comments and
additional information on the valuation
of aqueous ammonia to be considered
by the Department for the final results,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). For
further discussion of the comments
submitted to the Department by
Shanghai Fortune regarding the
valuation of aqueous ammonia, see
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
In addition to the Indian WTA import
data, we valued certain raw material
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:51 Apr 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
inputs (i.e., liquid sodium hydroxide,
hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, sodium
nitrite, copper sulfate, toluene, sodium
bicarbonate, ionic membrane sodium
hydroxide) based on Indian domestic
price data obtained from the Indian
publication Chemical Weekly. Because
the domestic chemical prices obtained
from Chemical Weekly are reported on
a 100–percent concentration basis
unless otherwise noted, we adjusted the
weighted–average POR price for
Shanghai Fortune’s reported product
chemical concentration percentage
levels, where appropriate. See Sebacic
Acid from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Review, 64 FR 69503, 69504–69505
(December 13, 1999) at Comment 2. We
calculated an average domestic price
from the multiple publication prices
within the POR, where applicable. We
adjusted the average value to exclude
excise and/or sales tax in each case
where the price was specifically
identified as being inclusive of the 16–
percent excise tax identified in Central
Excise Tariff 1998–99 (as published by
Cen–Cus Publications, New Delhi) and/
or sales tax, as appropriate. For further
details, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Attachment 5.
As noted in the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section above, Shanghai Fortune
provided evidence that it had purchased
phthalic anhydride from a market
economy supplier and paid for it in a
market economy currency. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1),
the Department has determined to use
the market economy price as reported
by Shanghai Fortune to value this input
because the market economy input
represents a significant quantity of the
input purchased during the POR. For
further details, see Shanghai Fortune
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
To value sulfur dioxide, the
Department used the per–kilogram
values obtained from Annual Import
Statistics of the Philippines National
Statistics Office, as published by the
WTA, because we found the POR Indian
data available for this input to be
unreliable due to small quantities and
aberrant values. We made adjustments
to the weighted–average value to
account for freight costs incurred
between the PRC supplier and Shanghai
Fortune. The Philippines WTA data is
reported in U.S. dollars (‘‘USD’’) and is
contemporaneous with the POR. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at
Attachment 4.
To value liquid chlorine, the
Department selected the sales value of
chlorine from public information the
Department placed on the record of this
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25251
review7 (i.e., annual reports of three
Indian Chemical companies: 1) Bihar
Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.; 2) Kanoria
Chemicals & Industries Limited; and 3)
TATA Chemicals) because we found the
WTA Indian data available for this input
to be unreliable due to small quantities
and aberrant values and Chemical
Weekly price data is not available for
this input. We averaged the sales prices
for chlorine reported in the three annual
reports and made adjustments to
account for freight costs incurred
between the PRC supplier and Shanghai
Fortune. The sales value data is reported
in rupees per metric ton and is
contemporaneous with the POR. See
also, Surrogate Value Memorandum at
Attachment 6.
To value electricity, the Department
used the 2000 electricity price rates
from Key World Energy Statistics 2003,
published by the International Energy
Agency available at https://
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/
elecprii.html. Because this data was not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted the average value for inflation
using WPI. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Attachment 8.
To value water, we used the Revised
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates for
June 1, 2003, available at https://
www.midcindia.com/water–supply,
adjusted for inflation using WPI.
For direct labor, indirect labor and
packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC
regression–based wage rates reflective of
the observed relationship between
wages and national income in market
economy countries as reported on
Import Administration’s home page. See
‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME
Countries’’ (revised January 2007)
(available at https://www.trade.gov/ia/).
For further details on the labor
calculation, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Attachment 7.
For factory overhead, selling, general,
and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’),
and profit values, consistent with 19
CFR 351.408(c)(4), we used public
information gathered from an auditor’s
report for the year ending March 31,
2006, from an Indian producer of
comparable merchandise (i.e., Atul
Ltd.). 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 traded
7 See Memorandum to the File, from Frances
Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding, ‘‘Surrogate
Value Data for Liquid Chlorine,’’ (March 8, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
25252
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 86 / Friday, May 4, 2007 / Notices
goods; and the profit rate as a
percentage of the cost of manufacture
plus SG&A and traded goods. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum for a full
discussion of the calculation of these
ratios.
For packing materials, we used the
per–kilogram values obtained from the
Indian WTA import data and made
adjustments to account for freight costs
incurred between the PRC supplier and
Shanghai Fortune. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Attachment 4.
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. sales, as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
cprice-sewell on DSK89S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily find the weighted–
average dumping margin for Shanghai
Fortune for the period July 1 2005,
through June 30, 2006, to be 47.60
percent.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used
in our preliminary analysis to parties to
this proceeding within five days of the
publication date of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are
invited to comment on the preliminary
results and may submit case briefs and/
or written comments within 30 days of
the date of publication of this notice.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 42
days after the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The
Department requests that parties
submitting written comments also
provide the Department with an
additional copy of those comments on
diskette or CD. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:51 Apr 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we calculated an exporter/importer–or
customer–specific assessment rate or
value for merchandise subject to this
review. For these preliminary results,
we divided the total dumping margins
for the reviewed sales by the total
entered quantity of those reviewed sales
for each applicable importer. In this
review, if these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review,
we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting rate against the entered
customs value or per–unit assessment,
as appropriate, for the subject
merchandise on each importers’/
customers’ entries during the POR.
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) for Shanghai
Fortune, which has a separate rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the company–
specific rate established in the final
results of review (except, if the rate is
zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will
be required); (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and non–
PRC exporters not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter–specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise that have not been found
to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate
of 329.33 percent; and (4) for all non–
PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not received their own rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that
supplied that non–PRC exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: April 27, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–8581 Filed 5–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–351–826)
Certain Small Diameter Seamless
Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line
and Pressure Pipe from Brazil: Notice
of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Bailey or Dena Crossland, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0193 or (202) 482–
3362, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 29, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published a notice of
initiation of administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
small diameter seamless carbon and
alloy steel standard, line and pressure
pipe from Brazil, covering the period
August 1, 2005, through July 31, 2006.
See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29,
2006). The preliminary results for this
review are currently due no later than
May 3, 2007.
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department to issue the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order for
which a review is requested and the
final results of review within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25247-25252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8581]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-878
Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on saccharin
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering the period July
1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. We preliminarily determine that sales
of subject merchandise were made at less than normal value (``NV'') by
Shanghai Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Fortune''). 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 all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
exported by Shanghai Fortune during the period of review (``POR'').
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Fornaro or Frances Veith, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3927 or (202) 482-4295,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 9, 2003, the Department published 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 3, 2006, the Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR
37890 (July 3, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 351. 213(b)(1), the
following requests were made: (1) on July 28, 2006, Shanghai Fortune
and Suzhou Fine Chemical Co. Group Ltd. (``Suzhou Fine Chemical''),
Chinese exporting producers of subject merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of their exports; (2) on
July 28, 2006, Amgal Chemical Products (1989) Ltd. (``Amgal''), an
Israeli exporting producer of sodium saccharin made from subject
merchandise manufactured in the PRC, requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of its exports.
On August 30, 2006, the Department initiated this administrative
review with respect to Shanghai Fortune, Suzhou Fine Chemical, and
Amgal. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 51573
(August 30, 2006). The Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to Shanghai Fortune, Suzhou Fine Chemical, and Amgal on
August 30, 2006.
On September 7, 2006, the Office of Policy issued a list of five
surrogate countries at a level of economic development comparable to
that of the PRC for the POR. See the Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen,
Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD
Enforcement, Office 8, regarding, ``Administrative Review of Saccharin
from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries'' (September 7, 2006) (``Policy Memorandum'').
On October 16 and November 14, 2006, Suzhou Fine Chemical and
Amgal, respectively, withdrew their requests for an administrative
review.
[[Page 25248]]
No other party requested an administrative review of Suzhou Fine
Chemical's or Amgal's exports to the United States.
On October 20, 2006, Shanghai Fortune submitted its sections A, C,
and D questionnaire response (``ACD-QR''). On September 8 and 12, 2006,
the Department invited interested parties to submit surrogate value
(``SV'') information and to submit comments on surrogate country
selection. See the Letter from Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, Office 8,
to All Interested Parties (September 8, 2006); and Letter from Blanche
Ziv, Program Manager, Office 8, to All Interested Parties (September
12, 2006). On November 13, 2006, Shanghai Fortune submitted publicly
available information to value the factors of production (``FOP''). No
interested party submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate
country.
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai
Fortune on December 20, 2006, and on February 20, March 1, and March
14, 2007. Shanghai Fortune submitted responses to these supplemental
questionnaires on January 17, March 6, March 20, and March 26, 2007,
respectively. The Department also issued a supplemental questionnaire
to Shanghai Fortune's U.S. customer on December 21, 2006. The U.S.
customer submitted a response to the Department's supplemental
questionnaire on January 18, 2007.
On December 26, 2006, the Department published a notice of partial
rescission of this administrative review with respect to Suzhou Fine
Chemical and Amgal. See Saccharin from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
71 FR 77382 (December 26, 2006).
On March 23, 2007, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for issuing its preliminary results
of review until May 2, 2007. See Saccharin from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 13746 (March 23,
2007).
Period of Review
The POR is July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006.
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
128-44-44); (2) calcium saccharin (CAS Registry 6485-34-34); (3) acid
(or insoluble) saccharin (CAS Registry 81-07-07); 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 currently 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 customs
purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this
order remains dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
Shanghai Fortune did not contest the Department's treatment of the
PRC as a non-market economy (``NME'') country, and the Department has
treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty
investigations and administrative reviews and continues to do so in
this case. See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006) (``FMTC-Final-04-05''); and
Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
69546 (December 1, 2006) (``Non-Malleable Pipe''). No interested party
in this case has argued that we should do otherwise. Designation as an
NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department.
See Section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's FOPs, 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 FOPs, the
Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of
the FOPs 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 Memorandum from Frances Veith, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, to
Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, ``Preliminary
Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum'' (April 27, 2007) (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
The Department determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the
Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development. See Policy Memorandum. Customarily, we select an
appropriate surrogate country from the Policy Memorandum based on the
availability and reliability of data from the countries that are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found
that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See
Memorandum from Frances Veith, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
through Blanche Ziv, Program Manager, and Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, to the File, ``2005-2006 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country'' (February 26, 2007) (``Surrogate
Country Memorandum'').
Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for
purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets
the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. See
Surrogate Country Memorandum and Surrogate Value Memorandum. Where
Indian data was not available, the Department calculated the SV using
World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') import statistics from the Philippines,
available at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The Philippines import data
represents cumulative values for fiscal year 2005. We 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 of
review.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all
[[Page 25249]]
companies within the country are subject to government control, and
thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is
the Department's policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise
subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent of government
control to be entitled to a separate rate. See, e.g., Honey from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764, 74765 (December
16, 2005) (unchanged in the final results);\1\ and Non-Malleable Pipe,
71 FR at 69548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We considered whether Shanghai Fortune, based in the PRC, is
eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to
determine whether the exporters are independent from government control
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. The test focuses,
rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-
making process at the individual firm level. See, e.g., Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,
62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997); and Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997).
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 select criteria. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20585, 22587 (May 6, 1991); 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). 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'').
Shanghai Fortune provided company-specific separate-rate
information and stated that it met the standards for the assignment of
a separate rate.\2\ Shanghai Fortune reported that it is wholly owned
by Fortune Knitting Co., Ltd., a privately held foreign-owned market
economy entity.\3\ Therefore, further separate-rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether Shanghai Fortune's export activities are
independent from government control. See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables
and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38852, at 38853-38855
(July 10, 2006) (``FMTC-Prelim-04-05'') (unchanged in the final)\4\ and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April
30, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ACD-QR at pages A2 through A8.
\3\ Id.
\4\ See FMTC-Final-04-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that:
in identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the
normal course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other
than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different
date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer
establishes the material terms of sale.
See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (upholding the Department's rebuttable
presumption that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale). After
examining the questionnaire responses and the sale documentation placed
on the record by Shanghai Fortune, we preliminarily determine that
invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale in this review. We
made this determination based on statements on the record that indicate
that Shanghai Fortune's invoice establishes the material terms of sale
to the extent required by our regulations. See Shanghai Fortune's ACD-
QR at A11 and C12. Nothing on the record of this review rebuts the
presumption that invoice date should be the date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Shanghai Fortune's sale of saccharin to the
United States was made at a price below NV, we compared Shanghai
Fortune's export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, pursuant to
section 773 of the Act.
Export Price
Because Shanghai Fortune sold subject merchandise to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation into
the United States and use of a constructed-export-price methodology was
not otherwise indicated, we used EP in accordance with section 772(a)
of the Act.
For Shanghai Fortune, we calculated EP based on the FOB Shanghai
port price to an unaffiliated purchaser. From this price, we deducted
amounts for foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling, pursuant
to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See Memorandum to the File from Ann
Fornaro, International Trade Compliance Analyst: ``Analysis for the
Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai
Fortune Chemical Co., Ltd.'' (April 27, 2007) (``Shanghai Fortune
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'').
The Department used two sources to calculate an SV for domestic
brokerage and handling expenses. The Department averaged December 2003
through November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28,
2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping duty
administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from
India. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 2018, 2022 (January 12, 2006). The Essar Steel data was
averaged with the February 2004 through January 2005 data contained in
Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (``Agro Dutch'') May 24, 2005, public
version response submitted in the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. See
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005); and FMTC-
Prelim-04-05 at 71 FR 38857 (utilizing this same data). The brokerage
expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public
versions is ranged data. Essar Steel reported averaged, ranged values
for each reported sale transaction in its submission, while Agro Dutch
reported an overall averaged, ranged value for its POR. In the instant
review, the Department first derived an overall average value from
[[Page 25250]]
Essar Steel's data. Then the Department adjusted both source's overall
average value for inflation. Finally, the Department derived an SV for
brokerage and handling by calculating an average from the source's
inflated average value. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment
12.
To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by
Indian Freight Exchange, available at https://www.infreight.com. The
truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR; therefore, we
made no adjustments for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at
Attachment 11.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME,
the Department shall determine NV using an 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. The Department
will base NV on FOP 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.
Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections
773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
The FOPs 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 the FOPs
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 the FOPs, but when
a producer sources an input from a market economy supplier 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, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs). 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 SVs to determine the NV. See, e.g.,
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination
Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Shanghai
Fortune reported that a significant percentage of its consumption of
phthalic anhydride used in the production of saccharin was purchased
from a market economy and paid for in a market economy currency. See
the ``Factor Valuations'' section of this notice, below, for further
discussion.
Shanghai Fortune reported that during the production process of
saccharin, it generates and recycles certain chemical by-products for
resale.\5\ However, Shanghai Fortune was unable to provide
documentation supporting its production and sales of these by-products
during the POR. The amount of 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), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (``The
Department allows such credits, but only for the amount of the by-
product/recovery actually sold or reused.''); Notice of the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Saccharin
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative, 71 FR 7515 (February 13,
2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Therefore, we are not granting a by-product offset to Shanghai Fortune.
For further details, see Shanghai Fortune Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ACD-QR in Exhibits D-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Shanghai Fortune for the POR. We relied
on the factor-specific data submitted by Shanghai Fortune in its
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses for purposes of
selecting SVs.
To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted
below). In selecting the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to render them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to Indian import SVs 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal
Circuit''). See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Where necessary, we adjusted the SVs for 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. For a detailed description of all SVs used for Shanghai
Fortune, see the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the July
1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, weighted-average unit import values
derived from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, as
published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of
India and used in the WTA, available at http:www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The
Indian WTA import data is reported in rupees and is contemporaneous
with the POR. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 4. We
adjusted the SVs to account for freight costs incurred between the
supplier and respondent. We used the freight rates published by Indian
Freight Exchange, available at https://www.infreight.com, to value truck
freight. Because the truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the
POR, we made no adjustments for inflation.
Furthermore, with regard to the WTA import-based SVs, for each
input value, we used the average unit value for that input imported
into India from all countries, with three exceptions. First, imports
from all countries that the Department has previously determined to be
NME countries were excluded from the average.\6\ Second, it is the
Department's current practice that, where the facts developed in U.S.
or third-country countervailing duty findings include the existence of
subsidies that appear to be used generally (in particular, broadly
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies), it is reasonable
for the Department to consider that it has particular and objective
evidence to
[[Page 25251]]
support a reason to believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from
the country granting the subsidies may be subsidized. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination
Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative
Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke
Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (Nov. 15, 2001), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; and China National Machinery Imp. &
Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), as
affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are also guided by the statute's legislative history that explains
that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to ensure
that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. No. 576 100th Cong.,
2. Sess. 590-91 (1988). Rather, the Department was instructed by
Congress to base its decision on information that is available to it at
the time it is making its determination. Therefore, we excluded export
prices from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India in calculating
the Indian import-based SVs or in calculating the Philippines import-
based SV. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For further information, see Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages: Request for Comment on Calculation Methodology, 70 FR 37761,
37763 (June 30, 2005) (``Wage Rate FR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we excluded imports that were labeled as originating from
an ``unspecified'' country from the average value because we could not
be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with
general export subsidies. For a complete description of the factor
values we used in these preliminary results, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
To value aqueous ammonia, the Department used the POR average unit
value for imports into India from all countries, except as noted above.
We invite parties to submit comments and additional information on the
valuation of aqueous ammonia to be considered by the Department for the
final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). For further
discussion of the comments submitted to the Department by Shanghai
Fortune regarding the valuation of aqueous ammonia, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
In addition to the Indian WTA import data, we valued certain raw
material inputs (i.e., liquid sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid,
sulfuric acid, sodium nitrite, copper sulfate, toluene, sodium
bicarbonate, ionic membrane sodium hydroxide) based on Indian domestic
price data obtained from the Indian publication Chemical Weekly.
Because the domestic chemical prices obtained from Chemical Weekly are
reported on a 100-percent concentration basis unless otherwise noted,
we adjusted the weighted-average POR price for Shanghai Fortune's
reported product chemical concentration percentage levels, where
appropriate. See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review, 64 FR 69503, 69504-69505
(December 13, 1999) at Comment 2. We calculated an average domestic
price from the multiple publication prices within the POR, where
applicable. We adjusted the average value to exclude excise and/or
sales tax in each case where the price was specifically identified as
being inclusive of the 16-percent excise tax identified in Central
Excise Tariff 1998-99 (as published by Cen-Cus Publications, New Delhi)
and/or sales tax, as appropriate. For further details, see Surrogate
Value Memorandum at Attachment 5.
As noted in the ``Normal Value'' section above, Shanghai Fortune
provided evidence that it had purchased phthalic anhydride from a
market economy supplier and paid for it in a market economy currency.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department has
determined to use the market economy price as reported by Shanghai
Fortune to value this input because the market economy input represents
a significant quantity of the input purchased during the POR. For
further details, see Shanghai Fortune Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
To value sulfur dioxide, the Department used the per-kilogram
values obtained from Annual Import Statistics of the Philippines
National Statistics Office, as published by the WTA, because we found
the POR Indian data available for this input to be unreliable due to
small quantities and aberrant values. We made adjustments to the
weighted-average value to account for freight costs incurred between
the PRC supplier and Shanghai Fortune. The Philippines WTA data is
reported in U.S. dollars (``USD'') and is contemporaneous with the POR.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 4.
To value liquid chlorine, the Department selected the sales value
of chlorine from public information the Department placed on the record
of this review\7\ (i.e., annual reports of three Indian Chemical
companies: 1) Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.; 2) Kanoria Chemicals &
Industries Limited; and 3) TATA Chemicals) because we found the WTA
Indian data available for this input to be unreliable due to small
quantities and aberrant values and Chemical Weekly price data is not
available for this input. We averaged the sales prices for chlorine
reported in the three annual reports and made adjustments to account
for freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and Shanghai
Fortune. The sales value data is reported in rupees per metric ton and
is contemporaneous with the POR. See also, Surrogate Value Memorandum
at Attachment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Memorandum to the File, from Frances Veith,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8,
regarding, ``Surrogate Value Data for Liquid Chlorine,'' (March 8,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value electricity, the Department used the 2000 electricity
price rates from Key World Energy Statistics 2003, published by the
International Energy Agency available at https://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprii.html. Because this data was not contemporaneous
with the POR, we adjusted the average value for inflation using WPI.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 8.
To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (``MIDC'') water rates for June 1, 2003,
available at https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply, adjusted for
inflation using WPI.
For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rates
reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national
income in market economy countries as reported on Import
Administration's home page. See ``Expected Wages of Selected NME
Countries'' (revised January 2007) (available at https://www.trade.gov/ia/). For further details on the labor calculation, see Surrogate Value
Memorandum at Attachment 7.
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses
(``SG&A''), and profit values, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4), we
used public information gathered from an auditor's report for the year
ending March 31, 2006, from an Indian producer of comparable
merchandise (i.e., Atul Ltd.). 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 traded
[[Page 25252]]
goods; and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture
plus SG&A and traded goods. See Surrogate Value Memorandum for a full
discussion of the calculation of these ratios.
For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained
from the Indian WTA import data and made adjustments to account for
freight costs incurred between the PRC supplier and Shanghai Fortune.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment 4.
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. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily find the weighted-average dumping margin for
Shanghai Fortune for the period July 1 2005, through June 30, 2006, to
be 47.60 percent.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used in our preliminary analysis
to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date
of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited
to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or
written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 42 days after the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department requests
that parties submitting written comments also provide the Department
with an additional copy of those comments on diskette or CD. 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 intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of this administrative review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we calculated an exporter/importer-or customer-specific
assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to this review. For
these preliminary results, we divided the total dumping margins for the
reviewed sales by the total entered quantity of those reviewed sales
for each applicable importer. In this review, if these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results of review, we will direct CBP
to assess the resulting rate against the entered customs value or per-
unit assessment, as appropriate, for the subject merchandise on each
importers'/customers' entries during the POR.
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) for Shanghai
Fortune, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the
company-specific rate established in the final results of review
(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be
required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise
that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 329.33 percent; and (4) for
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
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.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 27, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-8581 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
