Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 24943-24949 [E8-9990]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Notices
cited. Further, we request that parties
submitting written comments provide
the Department with a diskette
containing an electronic copy of the
public version of such comments. See,
generally, 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d).
This rescission in part and intent to
rescind the administrative review are
issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: April 30, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–9992 Filed 5–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–898
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
chlorinated isocyanurates (‘‘chlorinated
isos’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review
(‘‘POR’’) for this administrative review
is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007.
This administrative review covers two
producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise.
We preliminarily determine that both
respondents in this administrative
review made sales in the United States
at prices below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If
these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which
the importer–specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a statement of the issue and a brief
summary of the argument. We intend to
issue the final results of this review 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’’).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 May 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
EFFECTIVE DATE:
May 6, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Moats or Charles Riggle, 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) 482–5047 or (202) 482–
0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 24, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on chlorinated
isos from the PRC.1 On June 1, 2007, the
Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on chlorinated isos from the PRC for the
period June 1, 2006, through May 31,
2007.2 On June 28, 2007, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Nanning
Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. (‘‘Nanning’’),
a foreign producer/exporter of subject
merchandise, requested that the
Department review its sale(s) of subject
merchandise. On June 29, 2007, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),
Hebei Jiheng Chemical Company Ltd.
(‘‘Jiheng’’), a foreign producer/exporter
of subject merchandise, requested that
the Department review its sales of
subject merchandise. On July 2, 2007,
Clearon Corporation (‘‘Clearon’’) and
Occidental Chemical Corporation
(‘‘OxyChem’’), petitioners in the
underlying investigation, and BioLab,
Inc. (‘‘BioLab’’), a domestic producer of
the like product, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of Jiheng’s sales and entries
during the POR.
On July 26, 2007, the Department
initiated the second administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on chlorinated isos from the PRC.3 On
August 10, 2007, the Department issued
its antidumping duty questionnaire to
Jiheng and Nanning. On September 7,
2007, the Department requested that the
Office of Policy provide a list of
surrogate countries for this review.4 On
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 30542
(June 1, 2007).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 41057 (July
26, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
4 See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for
Surrogate-Country Selection: 2006-2007
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (September 7, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24943
September 17, 2007, the Office of Policy
issued its list of surrogate countries.5
On September 25, 2007, the
Department issued a letter to interested
parties seeking comments on surrogate
country selection and surrogate values.
On October 10, 2007, Jiheng submitted
comments regarding the selection of a
surrogate country. On October 22, 2007,
Clearon and OxyChem (‘‘Petitioners’’)
submitted rebuttal comments regarding
surrogate country selection. On
November 2, 2007, Jiheng and Nanning
submitted publicly available
information to value the factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’). On November 13,
2007, Petitioners submitted rebuttal
surrogate value comments. On February
13, 2008, Jiheng submitted rebuttal
comments to Petitioners’ surrogate value
comments. On April 9, 2008, Jiheng
submitted additional surrogate value
information on electricity.
On September 7, 2007, Nanning
submitted its section A questionnaire
response (‘‘Nanning AQR’’). On
September 10, 2007, Jiheng submitted
its section A questionnaire response
(‘‘Jiheng AQR’’). On October 2, 2007,
Jiheng submitted its sections C and D
questionnaire responses (‘‘Jiheng CQR
and Jiheng DQR’’, respectively). On
October 4, 2007, Nanning submitted its
sections C and D questionnaire
responses (‘‘Nanning CQR and Nanning
DQR’’, respectively). On November 8,
2007, Petitioners submitted comments
on Nanning’s AQR, CQR, and DQR. On
November 28, 2007, the Department
issued supplemental questionnaires to
Jiheng and Nanning. On December 20,
2007, Jiheng and Nanning submitted
their supplemental questionnaire
responses (‘‘Jiheng 1st SQR and Nanning
1st SQR’’, respectively).
On January 9, 2008, Department met
with counsel for Jiheng to explain some
concerns regarding Jiheng’s FOP
reporting methodology and claimed by
products and to introduce questions that
would be included in a second
supplemental questionnaire issued to
Jiheng. See January 17, 2008
Memorandum to The File regarding
Meeting with Counsel of Hebei Jiheng
Chemical Company, Ltd. On January 15,
2008, the Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng.
On January 24, 2008, Petitioners
submitted comments on Nanning’s 1st
SQR. On February 12, 2008, the
Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire to Nanning.
On February 20, 2008, Jiheng submitted
5 See the Memorandum regarding ‘‘Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries’’
(September 17, 2007) (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’).
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
24944
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
its second supplemental questionnaire
response (‘‘Jiheng 2nd SQR’’). On
February 25, 2008, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the
preliminary results of review until April
30, 2008.6
On March 5, 2008, Nanning submitted
its second supplemental questionnaire
response (‘‘Nanning 2nd SQR’’). On
March 17, 2008, Petitioners submitted
comments on Nanning 2nd SQR. On
March 21, 2008, the Department issued
a third supplemental questionnaire to
Nanning. On April 1, 2008, Nanning
submitted its third supplemental
questionnaire response (‘‘Nanning 3rd
SQR’’). On April 2, 2008, Department
officials again met with counsel to
Jiheng to introduce questions that
would be included in a third
supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng
regarding Jiheng’s reported FOPs and
claimed by products. See April 4, 2008
Memorandum to The File regarding
Meeting with Counsel of Hebei Jiheng
Chemical Company, Ltd. On April 3,
2008, Petitioners submitted comments
on Nanning’s 3rd SQR. On April 4, 2008,
the Department issued a third
supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng.
On April 16, 2008, Jiheng submitted its
third supplemental questionnaire
response (‘‘Jiheng 3rd SQR’’).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are chlorinated isos, as described below:
Chlorinated isos are derivatives of
cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated
s–triazine triones. There are three
primary chemical compositions of
chlorinated isos: (1)
trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3),
(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate
(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O), and (3)
sodium dichloroisocyanurate
(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated
isos are available in powder, granular,
and tableted forms. This order covers all
chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are
currently classifiable under subheadings
2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021,
2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40
and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification
2933.69.6015 covers sodium
dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and
dihydrate forms) and
trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff
classifications 2933.69.6021 and
2933.69.6050 represent basket categories
that include chlorinated isos and other
6 See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time limit for
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administration Review, 73 FR 9990 (February 25,
2008).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 May 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
compounds including an unfused
triazine ring. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Non–Market Economy Country
Jiheng and Nanning did not contest
the Department’s treatment of the PRC
as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’), 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.7 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
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it, in most
instances, to base NV on the NME
producer’s FOPs. The Act further
instructs that valuation of the FOPs
shall be based on the best available
information in the surrogate market
economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. See section 773(c)(1) of the
Act. When valuing the FOPs, the
Department shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of 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.
See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further,
the Department normally values all
FOPs in a single surrogate country. See
19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section
below and in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room
1117 of the main Department building.8
In examining which country to select
as its primary surrogate for this
proceeding, the Department first
determined that India, Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are
countries comparable to the PRC in
7 See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
159 (January 2, 2008); and Folding Metal Tables and
Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 2007).
8 See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Preliminary
Results of the 2006-2007 Administrative Review of
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum’’
(April 29, 2008) (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
terms of economic development. See
Surrogate Country List, which is on file
in the CRU. On September 25, 2007, the
Department issued a request for
interested parties to submit comments
on surrogate country selection. On
October 10, 2007, Jiheng submitted
comments regarding the selection of a
surrogate country. On October 22, 2007,
Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments
regarding surrogate country selection.
Jiheng argues that the Department
should continue to use India as a
surrogate country for this proceeding of
chlorinated isos, as it has in previous
proceedings, because India produces
comparable merchandise and there are
publicly available data with which to
value the reported FOP information in
this case. Petitioners argue that another
surrogate country other than India
should be considered because
chlorinated isos is not manufactured in
India and the level of production of the
most comparable product, calcium
hypochlorite, should be considered.
Nanning did not provide any comments
on the Department’s selection of a
surrogate country. All parties which
submitted surrogate value data
submitted Indian sourced data for the
majority of their data.
After evaluating interested parties’
comments, the Department determined
that India is the appropriate surrogate
country for use in this review. The
Department based its decision on the
following facts: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise,
i.e., calcium hypochlorite; and (3) India
provides the best opportunity to use
quality, publicly available data to value
the FOPs. On the record of this review,
we have usable surrogate financial data
from India, but no such surrogate
financial data from any other potential
surrogate country. Additionally, a vast
majority of the data submitted by both
the respondents and Petitioners for our
consideration as potential surrogate
values are sourced from India.
Therefore, because India best
represents the experience of producers
of comparable merchandise operating in
a surrogate country, we have selected
India as the surrogate country and,
accordingly, have calculated NV using
Indian prices to value the respondents’
FOPs, when available and appropriate.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We
have obtained and relied upon publicly
available information wherever
possible.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Notices
value FOPs until 20 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary results.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Separate Rates
The Department has implemented an
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate–rate
status in NME administrative reviews.
The process requires exporters and
producers to submit a separate–rate
status application. See also Policy
Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates Practice
and Application of Combination Rates
in Antidumping Investigations involving
Non–Market Economy Countries, (April
5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’),
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov.9
However, the standard for eligibility for
a separate rate (which is whether a firm
can demonstrate an absence of both de
jure and de facto government control
over its export activities) has not
changed.
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of merchandise
subject to review in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto government
control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity
exporting the subject merchandise
under a test arising from the Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further
developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
9 Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ‘‘While continuing
the practice of assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the Department
will now assign in its NME investigations will be
specific to those producers that supplied the
exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter
and all of the producers which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period of investigation.
This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated
firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ‘combination rates’
because such rates apply to specific combinations
of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only
to merchandise both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm that supplied the
exporter during the period of investigation.‘‘ See
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis in original).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 May 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign–
owned or located in a market economy,
then a separate–rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.
Separate Rate Recipients10
1. Wholly Foreign–Owned
No companies reported that they are
wholly owned by individuals or
companies located in a market economy
in their separate–rate applications.
Therefore, we are not addressing
wholly–foreign owned companies in our
analysis.
2. Located in a Market Economy with No
PRC Ownership
No companies in this administrative
review are located outside the PRC.
Therefore, we are not addressing this
ownership structure in these
preliminary results of review.
3. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese–
Owned Companies
Jiheng and Nanning stated that they
are either joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or are
wholly Chinese–owned companies
(collectively ‘‘PRC SR Applicants’’).
Therefore, the Department must analyze
whether these respondents can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over
export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by Jiheng and
Nanning supports a preliminary finding
of de jure absence of government control
based on the following: (1) an absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies;
and (3) there are formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
10 All separate rate applicants receiving a separate
rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘SR
Recipients’’, which include the mandatory
respondents as well.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24945
companies. See Jiheng’s September 10,
2007, submission at Exhibit A–6; and
Nanning’s September 7, 2007,
submission at Exhibit A–1.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22586–87; see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR
22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The
Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of
government control which would
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates.
The evidence placed on the record of
this administrative review by the PRC
SR Recipients demonstrates an absence
of de jure and de facto government
control with respect to each of the
respondent’s exports of the merchandise
under review, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. See ‘‘Preliminary
Results’’ section below for companies
marked with ‘‘*’’ designating these
companies as joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or
wholly Chinese–owned companies that
have demonstrated their eligibility for a
separate rate.
B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate
Rate
The Department has determined that
all parties applying for a separate rate in
this segment of the proceeding have
demonstrated an absence of government
control both in law and in fact (see
discussion above), and is, therefore, not
denying separate–rate status to any
applicants.
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
24946
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Notices
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.
Jiheng
Jiheng reported the shipment date as
the date of sale because it claims that,
for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise
made during the POR, the material
terms of sale were established on the
shipment date and its shipment date
was on or before the invoice date. We
have preliminarily determined that the
shipment date is the most appropriate
date to use as Jiheng’s date of sale in
accordance with our long–standing
practice of determining the date of sale
as the date on which the final terms of
sale are established.11 Evidence on the
record demonstrates that the shipment
date usually occurs prior to the invoice
date. See Jiheng’s CQR. It is the
Department’s practice to use shipment
date as the date of sale when the
shipment date occurs prior to the
invoice date.12 Moreover, the shipment
date was considered the sale date in the
prior POR.13
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Nanning
Nanning’s sale took place during the
previous POR. However, because the
sale entered the United States during
the current POR, any antidumping duty
liability can only be determined and
assessed in the context of the current
POR. Therefore, Nanning reported the
entry date which coincides with the
current administrative review period as
11 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination
of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 69 FR
76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10;
and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from
Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
12 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determinations of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Durum
Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada,
68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3.
13 See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
39053 (July 17, 2007) (unchanged in Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 159 (January 2, 2008)).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 May 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
its date of sale. We have preliminarily
determined that the entry date is the
most appropriate date to use as
Nanning’s date of sale in this
circumstance. It is the Department’s
practice to include sales that are sold
prior to the POR if the respondent can
demonstrate the sale entered the United
States during the POR.14
Jiheng and Nanning sold the subject
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States prior to importation
into the United States. Therefore, we
have used EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act because the use
of the constructed export price
methodology is not otherwise indicated.
We calculated EP based on the price
including the appropriate shipping
terms to the unaffiliated purchasers
reported by Jiheng and Nanning. From
this price, we deducted amounts for
foreign inland freight, brokerage and
handling, international freight, and
marine insurance, and added amounts
for components that were supplied free
of charge or reimbursed by the customer
where applicable, pursuant to section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.15
The Department used two sources to
calculate a surrogate value for domestic
brokerage expenses. The Department
averaged the February 2004–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.16 These data were averaged with
the July 2004–June 2005 data contained
in Kejriwal Paper Ltd.’s (‘‘Kejriwal’’)
January 9, 2006, public version response
submitted in the administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on lined
paper products from India.17 The
brokerage–expense data reported by
Agro Dutch and Kejriwal in the public
versions of their respective responses
are ranged data. The Department first
derived an average per–unit amount
from each data source. We then
separately adjusted each average rate for
inflation. Finally, we averaged the two
per–unit amounts to derive an overall
average rate for the POR. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
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 for the period April 2005
through October 2005. Since these dates
are not contemporaneous with the POR,
we made an adjustment for inflation.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Respondents who incurred
international freight expenses on the
subject merchandise reported that they
used a market–economy international
freight carrier and paid for the
international freight expense in a
market–economy currency. Therefore,
we used the reported international
freight expenses by the respondents,
where necessary.
To value marine insurance, we used
an April 2005 rate quote for marine
insurance from https://
www.rjgconsultants.com. Since this
date is not contemporaneous with the
POR, we made an adjustment for
inflation. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
Jiheng reported that its U.S.
customer(s) provided it with certain raw
materials and packing materials free of
charge. For Jiheng’s products that
contained inputs provided free of charge
by its customer,18 consistent with the
Department’s practice, we added to the
U.S. price paid by the Jiheng’s customer
14 See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 17834 (April 10,
2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
15 See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Analysis for the
Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007
Administrative Review of Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China:
Hebei Jiheng Chemical Company Ltd. (April 29,
2008); see also Memorandum regarding ‘‘Analysis
for the Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007
Administrative Review of Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China:
Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (April 29,
2008).
16 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005); and Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In
Part, and Postponement of Final Determination:
Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19704 (April 17,
2006) unchanged in Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative
Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
17 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination
of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006).
18 Jiheng stated that its customer sourced
materials from both market-economy and NME
suppliers. Jiheng further stated that it does not
know the names of the market-economy suppliers.
See Jiheng’s DQR at D-6–D-7.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of
chlorinated isos to the United States by
Jiheng and Nanning were made at less
than NV, we compared export price
(‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the
‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice, pursuant to
section 771(35) of the Act.
Export Price
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Notices
the built–up cost (i.e., the surrogate
value for these raw materials and
packing materials multiplied by the
reported FOPs for these items).19
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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
FOPs 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 FOPs 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 respondents for
materials, energy, labor, by products,
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 country and pays for
it in market–economy currency, the
Department may value the factor using
the actual price paid for the input.20
Jiheng reported that it did not purchase
any inputs from market economy
suppliers for the production of the
subject merchandise. See Jiheng’s DQR
at D–8. However, Nanning reported that
it purchased all of the sodium chloride
it consumed in the production of the
subject merchandise from market
economy suppliers and paid for its
purchases in a market–economy
currency. See Nanning’s DQR at D–4.
With regard to both the Indian
import–based surrogate values and the
market–economy input values, we have
disregarded prices that we have reason
to believe or suspect may be subsidized,
19 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of sales
at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.
20 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also, Shakeproof
Assembly Components Div. of Ill v. United States,
268 F.3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(affirming the Department’s use of market-based
prices to value certain FOPs).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 May 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
such as those from India, Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand. We have
found in other proceedings that these
countries maintain broadly available,
non–industry-specific export subsidies
and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer
that all exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.21 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.
100–576, at 590 (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 have
not used prices from these countries in
calculating the Indian import–based
surrogate values.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on the
FOPs reported by Jiheng and Nanning
for the POR. With respect to Nanning,
we adjusted its reported FOP for urea
and calculated an FOP for purchased
cyanuric acid consumed during the
POR. Specifically, Nanning’s reported
FOP for urea incorrectly calculated an
estimate of the up–stream urea factor for
its consumption of purchased cyanuric
acid. While the Department will value
the inputs into self–produced materials,
the Department does not value inputs
into purchased materials.22 Therefore,
in this limited circumstance because we
were easily able to do so based on the
record information provided by
Nanning, we made an adjustment to
Nanning’s reported FOP for urea, so that
it accounts only for Nanning’s reported
consumption in its production of self–
produced cyanuric acid. We also
calculated an FOP for Nanning’s
consumption of purchased cyanuric
acid based on its reported consumption
amounts of this factor. To calculate NV,
21 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005),
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the
First Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March
21, 2006); and China National Machinery Import &
Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F. Supp.
2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx. 183
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
22 See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 9508 (March 2,
2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 21; see also Certain
Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24947
we multiplied the reported per–unit
factor quantities by publicly available
Indian surrogate values (except as noted
below). In selecting the surrogate values,
we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to render them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Indian import surrogate values a
surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.
3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a
detailed description of all surrogate
values used for Jiheng and Nanning, see
the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Except as noted below, we valued raw
material inputs using the 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 in the World Trade
Atlas, available at https://www.gtis.com/
wta.htm (‘‘WTA’’). Where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR with
which to value FOPs, we adjusted the
surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum. We
further adjusted these prices 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. See the Surrogate Value
Memorandum. We adjusted the truck
and rail freight rates for inflation, where
necessary. For a complete description of
the factor values we used, see the
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued calcium chloride,
hydrochloric acid, barium chloride and
sulfuric acid using Chemical Weekly
because we did not have reliable Indian
import statistics in the WTA for these
factors. We adjusted these values for
taxes and to account for freight costs
incurred between the supplier and the
respondent.
Jiheng reported that its U.S.
customer(s) provided certain raw
materials and packing materials free of
charge. For Jiheng’s products that
included raw materials and packing
materials provided free of charge by its
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
24948
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
customer, consistent with the
Department’s practice, we used the
built–up cost (i.e., the surrogate value
for these raw materials and packing
materials multiplied by the reported
FOPs for these items) in the NV
calculation.23 Where applicable, we also
adjusted these values to account for
freight costs incurred between the port
of exit and Jiheng’s plants. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum, and
Jiheng’s Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum.
To value electricity, we used the 2000
electricity price data from International
Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes
- Quarterly Statistics (First Quarter
2003), adjusted for inflation. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum. On
April 9, 2008, Arch Chemicals
submitted additional information for
selection as a surrogate value for
electricity. We were unable to consider
this information in the selection of a
surrogate value for electricity for the
preliminary results. However, we will
review this information and any
discussion of the electricity value
included in parties’ case briefs for the
final results of review.
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. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
To value steam coal, we used data
obtained for categories B and C for coal
reported in Tata Energy Research
Institute’s Energy Data Directory &
Yearbook adjusted for inflation. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Jiheng reported chlorine, hydrogen
gas, ammonia gas, and sulfuric acid as
by products in the production of subject
merchandise. We found in this
administrative review that Jiheng has
appropriately reported its by products
and, therefore, granted Jiheng a by–
product offset for the quantities of these
reported by products. We valued
chlorine and hydrogen gas with
Philippine import data obtained from
WTA because it represented better
information than the Indian import data
for these factors. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor and
packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC
regression–based wage rate as reported
23 See,
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 May 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
on Import Administration’s web site.24
Because this regression–based wage rate
does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor,
we have applied the same wage rate to
all skill levels and types of labor
reported by each respondent. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For packing materials, we used the
per–kilogram values obtained from the
WTA and made adjustments to account
for freight costs incurred between the
PRC supplier and the respondents’
plants. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
For factory overhead, selling, general,
and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’),
and profit values, we used information
from Kanoria Chemicals and Industries
Limited for the year ending March 31,
2007. From this information, we were
able to determine factory overhead as a
percentage of the total raw materials,
labor and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A
as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead
(i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit
rate as a percentage of the cost of
manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum for a full
discussion of the calculation of these
ratios.
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.
briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed
no later than 5 days after the time limit
for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). The Department requests
that parties submitting written
comments provide an executive
summary and a table of authorities as
well as an additional copy of those
comments electronically.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Hearing requests should contain the
following information: (1) the party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held seven days after
the deadline for submission of the
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
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
Preliminary Results
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
We preliminarily determine that the
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
following weighted–average dumping
after the date of publication of the final
margins exist:
results of this administrative review. If
these preliminary results are adopted in
Manufacturer/Exporter
Margin (Percent)
our final results of review, the
Jiheng* ..........................
23.28 Department shall determine, and CBP
Nanning* .......................
66.89 shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR
Disclosure
351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
We will disclose the calculations used importer–specific (or customer) ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on
in our analysis to parties to this
the ratio of the total amount of dumping
proceeding within five days of the
margins calculated for the examined
publication date of this notice. See 19
sales to the total entered value of those
CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are
same sales. We will instruct CBP to
invited to comment on the preliminary
assess antidumping duties on all
results and may submit case briefs and/
appropriate entries covered by this
or written comments within 30 days of
review if any importer–specific rate
the date of publication of this notice.
calculated in the final results of this
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal
review is above de minimis.
24 See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries
(revised January 2007) (available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of these wage rate
data on the Import Administration’s web site is the
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004, ILO, (Geneva:
2004), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The
years of the reported wage rates range from 2003 to
2004.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, 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
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 88 / Tuesday, May 6, 2008 / Notices
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 Jiheng and
Nanning, which have separate rates, 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, a zero 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 285.63 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)(2) 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 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–9990 Filed 5–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
(A–791–815)
Ferrovanadium from South Africa:
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2008.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 May 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–
3773, respectively.
Background
On January 2, 2008, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published a
notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on
ferrovanadium from South Africa. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation: Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 73 FR 158
(January 2, 2008). On January 31, 2008,
Mittal Steel Lazaro Cardenas (an
exporter of subject merchandise)
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review on its behalf.
On February 27, 2008, the Department
published a notice of initiation of the
antidumping duty administrative review
of ferrovanadium from South Africa for
the period January 1, 2007, through
December 31, 2007. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 10422
(February 27, 2008).
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
that requested the review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
the requested review. On April 22, 2008,
Mital Steel Lazaro Cardenas withdrew
its request for an administrative review
within 90 days of publication of the
notice of initiation of this review.
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), the Department hereby
rescinds the administrative review of
ferrovanadium from South Africa for the
period January 1, 2007, through
December 31, 2007. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to U.S. Customs and Border Protection
15 days after the date of publication of
this notice of rescission of
administrative review.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with section 777(i) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: April 30, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–9988 Filed 5–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
24949
Advisory Committee on Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Meeting
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on
Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR
or Committee), will hold a meeting on
Wednesday, May 21, 2008 from 1 p.m.
to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The primary purpose of this meeting is
to review the Committee’s draft report to
the NIST Director. The draft report will
be posted on the NEHRP Web site at
https://nehrp.gov/. Interested members of
the public will be able to participate in
the meeting from remote locations by
calling into a central phone number.
DATES: The ACEHR will hold a meeting
on Wednesday, May 21, 2008, from 1
p.m. until 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST). The meeting will be open to the
public. Interested parties may
participate in the meeting from their
remote location.
ADDRESSES: Questions regarding the
meeting should be sent to National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
Director, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail
Stop 8630, Gaithersburg, Maryland
20899–8630. For instructions on how to
participate in the meeting, please see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Jack Hayes, National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program Director,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail
Stop 8630, Gaithersburg, Maryland
20899–8630. Dr. Hayes’ e-mail address
is jack.hayes@nist.gov and his phone
number is (301) 975–5640.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Committee was established in
accordance with the requirements of
Section 103 of the NEHRP
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L.
108–360). The Committee is composed
of 15 members appointed by the
Director of NIST, who were selected for
their technical expertise and experience,
E:\FR\FM\06MYN1.SGM
06MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24943-24949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-9990]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-898
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated
isocyanurates (``chlorinated isos'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') for this administrative
review is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. This administrative
review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.
We preliminarily determine that both respondents in this
administrative review made sales in the United States at prices below
normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment
rates are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument.
We intend to issue the final results of this review 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 6, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats or Charles Riggle, 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-
5047 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 24, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos from the PRC.\1\ On June
1, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos
from the PRC for the period June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007.\2\ On
June 28, 2007, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Nanning
Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. (``Nanning''), a foreign producer/exporter
of subject merchandise, requested that the Department review its
sale(s) of subject merchandise. On June 29, 2007, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b)(2), Hebei Jiheng Chemical Company Ltd. (``Jiheng''), a
foreign producer/exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the
Department review its sales of subject merchandise. On July 2, 2007,
Clearon Corporation (``Clearon'') and Occidental Chemical Corporation
(``OxyChem''), petitioners in the underlying investigation, and BioLab,
Inc. (``BioLab''), a domestic producer of the like product, requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of Jiheng's sales
and entries during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Chlorinated
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June
24, 2005).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 72 FR 30542 (June 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 2007, the Department initiated the second
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos
from the PRC.\3\ On August 10, 2007, the Department issued its
antidumping duty questionnaire to Jiheng and Nanning. On September 7,
2007, the Department requested that the Office of Policy provide a list
of surrogate countries for this review.\4\ On September 17, 2007, the
Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate countries.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR
41057 (July 26, 2007) (``Initiation Notice'').
\4\ See Memorandum regarding ``Request for Surrogate-Country
Selection: 2006-2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of
China'' (September 7, 2007).
\5\ See the Memorandum regarding ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries''
(September 17, 2007) (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 25, 2007, the Department issued a letter to interested
parties seeking comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate
values. On October 10, 2007, Jiheng submitted comments regarding the
selection of a surrogate country. On October 22, 2007, Clearon and
OxyChem (``Petitioners'') submitted rebuttal comments regarding
surrogate country selection. On November 2, 2007, Jiheng and Nanning
submitted publicly available information to value the factors of
production (``FOP''). On November 13, 2007, Petitioners submitted
rebuttal surrogate value comments. On February 13, 2008, Jiheng
submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioners' surrogate value comments.
On April 9, 2008, Jiheng submitted additional surrogate value
information on electricity.
On September 7, 2007, Nanning submitted its section A questionnaire
response (``Nanning AQR''). On September 10, 2007, Jiheng submitted its
section A questionnaire response (``Jiheng AQR''). On October 2, 2007,
Jiheng submitted its sections C and D questionnaire responses (``Jiheng
CQR and Jiheng DQR'', respectively). On October 4, 2007, Nanning
submitted its sections C and D questionnaire responses (``Nanning CQR
and Nanning DQR'', respectively). On November 8, 2007, Petitioners
submitted comments on Nanning's AQR, CQR, and DQR. On November 28,
2007, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Jiheng and
Nanning. On December 20, 2007, Jiheng and Nanning submitted their
supplemental questionnaire responses (``Jiheng 1\st\ SQR and Nanning
1\st\ SQR'', respectively).
On January 9, 2008, Department met with counsel for Jiheng to
explain some concerns regarding Jiheng's FOP reporting methodology and
claimed by products and to introduce questions that would be included
in a second supplemental questionnaire issued to Jiheng. See January
17, 2008 Memorandum to The File regarding Meeting with Counsel of Hebei
Jiheng Chemical Company, Ltd. On January 15, 2008, the Department
issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng. On January 24,
2008, Petitioners submitted comments on Nanning's 1\st\ SQR. On
February 12, 2008, the Department issued a second supplemental
questionnaire to Nanning. On February 20, 2008, Jiheng submitted
[[Page 24944]]
its second supplemental questionnaire response (``Jiheng 2\nd\ SQR'').
On February 25, 2008, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results of review
until April 30, 2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Time limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administration Review, 73 FR 9990 (February 25,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2008, Nanning submitted its second supplemental
questionnaire response (``Nanning 2\nd\ SQR''). On March 17, 2008,
Petitioners submitted comments on Nanning 2\nd\ SQR. On March 21, 2008,
the Department issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Nanning. On
April 1, 2008, Nanning submitted its third supplemental questionnaire
response (``Nanning 3\rd\ SQR''). On April 2, 2008, Department
officials again met with counsel to Jiheng to introduce questions that
would be included in a third supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng
regarding Jiheng's reported FOPs and claimed by products. See April 4,
2008 Memorandum to The File regarding Meeting with Counsel of Hebei
Jiheng Chemical Company, Ltd. On April 3, 2008, Petitioners submitted
comments on Nanning's 3\rd\ SQR. On April 4, 2008, the Department
issued a third supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng. On April 16, 2008,
Jiheng submitted its third supplemental questionnaire response
(``Jiheng 3\rd\ SQR'').
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are chlorinated isos, as
described below:
Chlorinated isos are derivatives of cyanuric acid, described as
chlorinated s-triazine triones. There are three primary chemical
compositions of chlorinated isos: (1) trichloroisocyanuric acid
(Cl3(NCO)3), (2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate
(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O), and
(3) sodium dichloroisocyanurate (anhydrous)
(NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated isos are available in
powder, granular, and tableted forms. This order covers all chlorinated
isos. Chlorinated isos are currently classifiable under subheadings
2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021, 2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40 and
3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). The tariff classification 2933.69.6015 covers sodium
dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and dihydrate forms) and
trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff classifications 2933.69.6021 and
2933.69.6050 represent basket categories that include chlorinated isos
and other compounds including an unfused triazine ring. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country
Jiheng and Nanning did not contest the Department's treatment of
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''), 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.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 159 (January 2, 2008); and Folding Metal Tables and
Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it, in most instances, to base NV
on the NME producer's FOPs. The Act further instructs that valuation of
the FOPs shall be based on the best available information in the
surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. See section 773(c)(1) of the Act. When
valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible,
the prices or costs of 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. See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, the Department
normally values all FOPs in a single surrogate country. See 19 CFR
351.408(c)(2). The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''),
Room 1117 of the main Department building.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Memorandum regarding ``Preliminary Results of the 2006-
2007 Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (April 29,
2008) (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate for
this proceeding, the Department first determined that India, Indonesia,
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the
PRC in terms of economic development. See Surrogate Country List, which
is on file in the CRU. On September 25, 2007, the Department issued a
request for interested parties to submit comments on surrogate country
selection. On October 10, 2007, Jiheng submitted comments regarding the
selection of a surrogate country. On October 22, 2007, Petitioners
submitted rebuttal comments regarding surrogate country selection.
Jiheng argues that the Department should continue to use India as a
surrogate country for this proceeding of chlorinated isos, as it has in
previous proceedings, because India produces comparable merchandise and
there are publicly available data with which to value the reported FOP
information in this case. Petitioners argue that another surrogate
country other than India should be considered because chlorinated isos
is not manufactured in India and the level of production of the most
comparable product, calcium hypochlorite, should be considered. Nanning
did not provide any comments on the Department's selection of a
surrogate country. All parties which submitted surrogate value data
submitted Indian sourced data for the majority of their data.
After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department
determined that India is the appropriate surrogate country for use in
this review. The Department based its decision on the following facts:
(1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of
the PRC; (2) India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise,
i.e., calcium hypochlorite; and (3) India provides the best opportunity
to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs. On the
record of this review, we have usable surrogate financial data from
India, but no such surrogate financial data from any other potential
surrogate country. Additionally, a vast majority of the data submitted
by both the respondents and Petitioners for our consideration as
potential surrogate values are sourced from India.
Therefore, because India best represents the experience of
producers of comparable merchandise operating in a surrogate country,
we have selected India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, have
calculated NV using Indian prices to value the respondents' FOPs, when
available and appropriate. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We have
obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever
possible.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
[[Page 24945]]
value FOPs until 20 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary results.
Separate Rates
The Department has implemented an application process by which
exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME
administrative reviews. The process requires exporters and producers to
submit a separate-rate status application. See also Policy Bulletin
05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,
(April 5, 2005) (``Policy Bulletin 05.1''), available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov.\9\ However, the standard for eligibility for a separate
rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de
jure and de facto government control over its export activities) has
not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ``While continuing the practice
of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates
that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will
be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the
period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated
for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice
applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually
calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated
firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated
rates. This practice is referred to as the application of
`combination rates' because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.`` See
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export activities. The Department
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test
arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent
from government control.
Separate Rate Recipients\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ All separate rate applicants receiving a separate rate are
hereby referred to collectively as the ``SR Recipients'', which
include the mandatory respondents as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
No companies reported that they are wholly owned by individuals or
companies located in a market economy in their separate-rate
applications. Therefore, we are not addressing wholly-foreign owned
companies in our analysis.
2. Located in a Market Economy with No PRC Ownership
No companies in this administrative review are located outside the
PRC. Therefore, we are not addressing this ownership structure in these
preliminary results of review.
3. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
Jiheng and Nanning stated that they are either joint ventures
between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned
companies (collectively ``PRC SR Applicants''). Therefore, the
Department must analyze whether these respondents can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export
activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by Jiheng and Nanning supports a preliminary
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the
following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See Jiheng's September 10, 2007,
submission at Exhibit A-6; and Nanning's September 7, 2007, submission
at Exhibit A-1.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
The evidence placed on the record of this administrative review by
the PRC SR Recipients demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to each of the respondent's exports of
the merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. See ``Preliminary
Results'' section below for companies marked with ``[ast]'' designating
these companies as joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies
or wholly Chinese-owned companies that have demonstrated their
eligibility for a separate rate.
B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
The Department has determined that all parties applying for a
separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated an
absence of government control both in law and in fact (see discussion
above), and is, therefore, not denying separate-rate status to any
applicants.
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
[[Page 24946]]
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.
Jiheng
Jiheng reported the shipment date as the date of sale because it
claims that, for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise made during the
POR, the material terms of sale were established on the shipment date
and its shipment date was on or before the invoice date. We have
preliminarily determined that the shipment date is the most appropriate
date to use as Jiheng's date of sale in accordance with our long-
standing practice of determining the date of sale as the date on which
the final terms of sale are established.\11\ Evidence on the record
demonstrates that the shipment date usually occurs prior to the invoice
date. See Jiheng's CQR. It is the Department's practice to use shipment
date as the date of sale when the shipment date occurs prior to the
invoice date.\12\ Moreover, the shipment date was considered the sale
date in the prior POR.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 69 FR
76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 10; and Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Germany, 67 FR
35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
\12\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from
Canada, 68 FR 52741 (September 5, 2003), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
\13\ See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 39053 (July 17, 2007) (unchanged in Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 159 (January 2,
2008)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanning
Nanning's sale took place during the previous POR. However, because
the sale entered the United States during the current POR, any
antidumping duty liability can only be determined and assessed in the
context of the current POR. Therefore, Nanning reported the entry date
which coincides with the current administrative review period as its
date of sale. We have preliminarily determined that the entry date is
the most appropriate date to use as Nanning's date of sale in this
circumstance. It is the Department's practice to include sales that are
sold prior to the POR if the respondent can demonstrate the sale
entered the United States during the POR.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 17834
(April 10, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of chlorinated isos to the United States
by Jiheng and Nanning were made at less than NV, we compared export
price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice, pursuant to section 771(35) of the
Act.
Export Price
Jiheng and Nanning sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United
States. Therefore, we have used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act because the use of the constructed export price methodology is
not otherwise indicated. We calculated EP based on the price including
the appropriate shipping terms to the unaffiliated purchasers reported
by Jiheng and Nanning. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign
inland freight, brokerage and handling, international freight, and
marine insurance, and added amounts for components that were supplied
free of charge or reimbursed by the customer where applicable, pursuant
to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Memorandum regarding ``Analysis for the Preliminary
Results of the 2006-2007 Administrative Review of Chlorinated
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Hebei Jiheng
Chemical Company Ltd. (April 29, 2008); see also Memorandum
regarding ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2006-2007
Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Nanning Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (April 29,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for
domestic brokerage expenses. The Department averaged the February 2004-
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.\16\ These data were averaged with the
July 2004-June 2005 data contained in Kejriwal Paper Ltd.'s
(``Kejriwal'') January 9, 2006, public version response submitted in
the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on lined paper
products from India.\17\ The brokerage-expense data reported by Agro
Dutch and Kejriwal in the public versions of their respective responses
are ranged data. The Department first derived an average per-unit
amount from each data source. We then separately adjusted each average
rate for inflation. Finally, we averaged the two per-unit amounts to
derive an overall average rate for the POR. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30,
2005); and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19704 (April 17,
2006) unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
\17\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 for the period April 2005 through October 2005.
Since these dates are not contemporaneous with the POR, we made an
adjustment for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Respondents who incurred international freight expenses on the
subject merchandise reported that they used a market-economy
international freight carrier and paid for the international freight
expense in a market-economy currency. Therefore, we used the reported
international freight expenses by the respondents, where necessary.
To value marine insurance, we used an April 2005 rate quote for
marine insurance from https://www.rjgconsultants.com. Since this date is
not contemporaneous with the POR, we made an adjustment for inflation.
See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Jiheng reported that its U.S. customer(s) provided it with certain
raw materials and packing materials free of charge. For Jiheng's
products that contained inputs provided free of charge by its
customer,\18\ consistent with the Department's practice, we added to
the U.S. price paid by the Jiheng's customer
[[Page 24947]]
the built-up cost (i.e., the surrogate value for these raw materials
and packing materials multiplied by the reported FOPs for these
items).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Jiheng stated that its customer sourced materials from both
market-economy and NME suppliers. Jiheng further stated that it does
not know the names of the market-economy suppliers. See Jiheng's DQR
at D-6-D-7.
\19\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 FOPs 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 FOPs 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 respondents for materials, energy, labor, by products,
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 country and pays for
it in market-economy currency, the Department may value the factor
using the actual price paid for the input.\20\ Jiheng reported that it
did not purchase any inputs from market economy suppliers for the
production of the subject merchandise. See Jiheng's DQR at D-8.
However, Nanning reported that it purchased all of the sodium chloride
it consumed in the production of the subject merchandise from market
economy suppliers and paid for its purchases in a market-economy
currency. See Nanning's DQR at D-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also, Shakeproof Assembly
Components Div. of Ill v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382-1383
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-based
prices to value certain FOPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and
the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that we
have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized, such as those from
India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand. We have found in other
proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to
infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be
subsidized.\21\ 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. 100-576, at 590 (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 have not used
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based
surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007,
54011 (September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China
National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States, 293
F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Jiheng and Nanning for the POR. With
respect to Nanning, we adjusted its reported FOP for urea and
calculated an FOP for purchased cyanuric acid consumed during the POR.
Specifically, Nanning's reported FOP for urea incorrectly calculated an
estimate of the up-stream urea factor for its consumption of purchased
cyanuric acid. While the Department will value the inputs into self-
produced materials, the Department does not value inputs into purchased
materials.\22\ Therefore, in this limited circumstance because we were
easily able to do so based on the record information provided by
Nanning, we made an adjustment to Nanning's reported FOP for urea, so
that it accounts only for Nanning's reported consumption in its
production of self-produced cyanuric acid. We also calculated an FOP
for Nanning's consumption of purchased cyanuric acid based on its
reported consumption amounts of this factor. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly
available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In selecting
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices
by including freight costs to render them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a
detailed description of all surrogate values used for Jiheng and
Nanning, see the Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 21; see also Certain Cased Pencils from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the
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 in the World Trade Atlas, available
at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm (``WTA''). Where we could not obtain
publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which
to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary
Fund. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We further adjusted these prices
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.
See the Surrogate Value Memorandum. We adjusted the truck and rail
freight rates for inflation, where necessary. For a complete
description of the factor values we used, see the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
We valued calcium chloride, hydrochloric acid, barium chloride and
sulfuric acid using Chemical Weekly because we did not have reliable
Indian import statistics in the WTA for these factors. We adjusted
these values for taxes and to account for freight costs incurred
between the supplier and the respondent.
Jiheng reported that its U.S. customer(s) provided certain raw
materials and packing materials free of charge. For Jiheng's products
that included raw materials and packing materials provided free of
charge by its
[[Page 24948]]
customer, consistent with the Department's practice, we used the built-
up cost (i.e., the surrogate value for these raw materials and packing
materials multiplied by the reported FOPs for these items) in the NV
calculation.\23\ Where applicable, we also adjusted these values to
account for freight costs incurred between the port of exit and
Jiheng's plants. See Surrogate Value Memorandum, and Jiheng's
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 71
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from
International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly
Statistics (First Quarter 2003), adjusted for inflation. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum. On April 9, 2008, Arch Chemicals submitted additional
information for selection as a surrogate value for electricity. We were
unable to consider this information in the selection of a surrogate
value for electricity for the preliminary results. However, we will
review this information and any discussion of the electricity value
included in parties' case briefs for the final results of review.
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. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
To value steam coal, we used data obtained for categories B and C
for coal reported in Tata Energy Research Institute's Energy Data
Directory & Yearbook adjusted for inflation. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
Jiheng reported chlorine, hydrogen gas, ammonia gas, and sulfuric
acid as by products in the production of subject merchandise. We found
in this administrative review that Jiheng has appropriately reported
its by products and, therefore, granted Jiheng a by-product offset for
the quantities of these reported by products. We valued chlorine and
hydrogen gas with Philippine import data obtained from WTA because it
represented better information than the Indian import data for these
factors. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as
reported on Import Administration's web site.\24\ Because this
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by each
respondent. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries (revised
January 2007) (available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source
of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is
the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004, ILO, (Geneva: 2004), Chapter
5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates
range from 2003 to 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained
from the WTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred
between the PRC supplier and the respondents' plants. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses
(``SG&A''), and profit values, we used information from Kanoria
Chemicals and Industries Limited for the year ending March 31, 2007.
From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a
percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (``ML&E'')
costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of
manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of
manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate Value Memorandum for a full
discussion of the calculation of these ratios.
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
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiheng[ast]......................................... 23.28
Nanning[ast]........................................ 66.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this
notice. See 19 CFR 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). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments,
may be filed no later than 5 days after the time limit for filing the
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department requests that
parties submitting written comments provide an executive summary and a
table of authorities as well as an additional copy of those comments
electronically.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Hearing requests
should contain the following information: (1) the party's name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held seven days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal
briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
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. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review, the Department shall determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific
(or customer) ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales
to the total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this
review if any importer-specific rate calculated in the final results of
this review is above de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Further, 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
[[Page 24949]]
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
Jiheng and Nanning, which have separate rates, 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, a zero 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 285.63 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)(2) 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 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-9990 Filed 5-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
