Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52007-52012 [E8-20750]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices
including the availability from other
countries of the goods, software or
technology proposed for such controls;
2. Whether the foreign policy
objective of such controls can be
achieved through negotiations or other
alternative means;
3. The compatibility of the controls
with the foreign policy objectives of the
United States and with overall United
States policy toward the country subject
to the controls;
4. Whether the reaction of other
countries to the extension of such
controls is not likely to render the
controls ineffective in achieving the
intended foreign policy objective or be
counterproductive to United States
foreign policy interests;
5. The comparative benefits to U.S.
foreign policy objectives versus the
effect of the controls on the export
performance of the United States, the
competitive position of the United
States in the international economy, the
international reputation of the United
States as a supplier of goods and
technology; and
6. The ability of the United States to
enforce the controls effectively.
BIS is particularly interested in
receiving comments on the economic
impact of proliferation controls. BIS is
also interested in industry information
relating to the following:
1. Information on the effect of foreign
policy-based export controls on sales of
U.S. products to third countries (i.e.,
those countries not targeted by
sanctions), including the views of
foreign purchasers or prospective
customers regarding U.S. foreign policybased export controls.
2. Information on controls maintained
by U.S. trade partners. For example, to
what extent do they have similar
controls on goods and technology on a
worldwide basis or to specific
destinations?
3. Information on licensing policies or
practices by our foreign trade partners
that are similar to U.S. foreign policybased export controls, including license
review criteria, use of conditions,
requirements for pre- and post-shipment
verifications (preferably supported by
examples of approvals, denials and
foreign regulations).
4. Suggestions for revisions to foreign
policy-based export controls that would
bring them more into line with
multilateral practice.
5. Comments or suggestions as to
actions that would make multilateral
controls more effective.
6. Information that illustrates the
effect of foreign policy-based export
controls on trade or acquisitions by
intended targets of the controls.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:59 Sep 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
7. Data or other information on the
effect of foreign policy-based export
controls on overall trade at the level of
individual industrial sectors.
8. Suggestions as to how to measure
the effect of foreign policy-based export
controls on trade.
9. Information on the use of foreign
policy-based export controls on targeted
countries, entities, or individuals.
BIS is also interested in comments
relating generally to the extension or
revision of existing foreign policy-based
export controls.
Entity List
The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to
Part 744 of the EAR) provides notice to
the public that certain exports and
reexports to parties identified on the
Entity List require a license from BIS
and that availability of License
Exceptions in such transactions is
limited. In connection with the annual
review of all foreign policy-based export
controls, BIS is particularly interested in
public comments regarding the Entity
List, including but not limited to those
specific to the entities on the List and
the licensing policies and requirements
assigned to each of them, and on the
Entity List’s utility and suggestions for
ways it might be improved through
changes in format, organization or
otherwise.
Parties submitting comments are
asked to be as specific as possible. All
comments received before the close of
the comment period will be considered
by BIS in reviewing the controls and
developing the report to Congress and/
or in implementing changes to the
Entity List.
BIS will not accept public comments
accompanied by a request that a part or
all of the material be treated
confidentially because of its business
proprietary nature or for any other
reason. BIS will return such comments
and materials to the persons submitting
the comments and will not consider
them in the development of a response.
All information relating to the notice
will be a matter of public record and
will be available for public inspection
and copying. In the interest of accuracy
and completeness, BIS requires written
comments. Oral comments must be
followed by written memoranda, which
will also be a matter of public record
and will be available for public review
and copying.
The Office of Administration, Bureau
of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, displays
these public comments on BIS’s
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web
site at https://www.bis.doc.gov/foia. This
office does not maintain a separate
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52007
public inspection facility. If you have
technical difficulties accessing this Web
site, please call BIS’s Office of
Administration at (202) 482–0637 for
assistance.
Dated: August 29, 2008.
Christopher R. Wall,
Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–20672 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–892
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on carbazole
violet pigment 23 (CVP 23) from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC). The
period of review (POR) is December 1,
2006, through November 30, 2007. We
preliminarily determine that 11
companies have failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of their ability to
comply with our requests for
information and, as a result, should be
assigned a rate based on adverse facts
available (AFA). We are also rescinding
this administrative review with respect
to three companies. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We will issue the final results no later
than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2657 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
52008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices
Background
On December 29, 2004, the
Department published the antidumping
duty order on CVP 23 from the PRC. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 77987
(December 29, 2004). On December 3,
2007, the Department published
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 67889
(December 3, 2007). On December 31,
2007, Nation Ford Chemical Company
and Sun Chemical Corporation
(collectively, petitioners) requested an
administrative review of entries of
subject merchandise made during the
POR by 14 Chinese exporters, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1).
The 14 exporters included in
petitioners’ request for review were:
Aesthetic Colortech (Shanghai)
Company, Limited (Aesthetic
Colortech); Anhui Worldbest IE
Company, Limited (Anhui Worldbest);
Cidic Company, Limited (Cidic);
Ganguink Company, Pigment Division
(Ganguink); Goldlink Industries
Company, Limited (Goldlink); Hunan
Sunlogistics International Company,
Limited (Hunan Sunlogistics); Hygeia–
Chem (Shanghai) Company, Limited
(Hygeia–Chem); Nantong Haidi
Chemical Company, Limited (Nantong
Chemical); Pudong Prime International
Logistic Incorporated (Pudong Prime);
Shanghai Rainbow Dyes Import and
Export (Shanghai Rainbow); Sinocol
Corporation, Limited (Sinocol); Tianjin
Hanchem International Trading
Company, Limited (Tianjin Hanchem);
Trust Chem Company, Limited (Trust
Chem); and Yangcheng Tiacheng
Chemical Company, Limited
(Yangcheng Chemical).
On January 28, 2008, the Department
initiated an administrative review of
these 14 companies. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 73 FR 4829 (January
28, 2008). On February 1, 2008, the
Department issued a letter to interested
parties announcing its intention to limit
the number of respondents selected for
review and to select respondents based
on CBP data for U.S. imports of CVP 23
during the POR. On February 4, 2008,
the Department requested that
petitioners submit addresses for each of
the companies included in their request
for review; petitioners provided address
information to the Department on that
same date. On February 5, 2008, the
Department released the letter regarding
its respondent–selection methodology
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:59 Sep 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
and the CBP import data to the 14
Chinese exporters and extended the
deadline for parties to submit comments
until February 12, 2008. For information
related to the delivery of these letters,
see the memorandum entitled
‘‘Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People’s Republic of China: Delivery of
Various Documents to Respondents in
the 2006–2007 Administrative Review,’’
dated August 27, 2008 (Delivery
Tracking Memorandum) at Attachment
1. No interested parties submitted
comments to the Department.
On February 25, 2008, because it was
not feasible to examine all 14 exporters
of the subject merchandise, for purposes
of this administrative review, the
Department selected the largest
company by export volume, Goldlink, as
a mandatory respondent in accordance
with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act). See
Memorandum from Blanche Ziv to
Wendy J. Frankel, ‘‘2006–2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23
from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of Respondents,’’ dated
February 25, 2008. On February 26,
2008, the Department issued an
antidumping questionnaire to Goldlink.
For information regarding the delivery
of this questionnaire, see the Delivery
Tracking Memorandum at Attachment
2. Goldlink did not respond to the
Department’s questionnaire.
On March 3, 2008, the Department
sent separate rate applications/
certifications to the following 12
Chinese exporters of CVP 23: Aesthetic
Colortech; Anhui Worldbest; Cidic;
Ganguink; Goldlink; Hunan
Sunlogistics; Nantong Chemical;
Pudong Prime; Shanghai Rainbow;
Sinocol; Tianjin Hanchem; and Trust
Chem. On March 4, 2008, the
Department sent separate rates
applications/certifications to Hygeia–
Chem and Yangcheng Chemical after
petitioners provided more accurate
addresses for these two exporters. For
information regarding the delivery of
the separate rate applications/
certifications, see the Delivery Tracking
Memorandum at Attachment 3. The
Department did not receive a response
to the separate rate application/
certification from any of the 14
companies.
On April 18, 2008, the Department
sent a second letter to each of the four
companies that had been assigned a
separate rate in a prior segment of this
proceeding, namely, Goldlink, Nantong
Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust
Chem. For information regarding the
delivery of these letters, see the Delivery
Tracking Memorandum at Attachment
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4. In its letter to Goldlink, the
Department stated that since Goldlink
did not respond to the antidumping
questionnaire, the Department may
resort to the use of facts available with
an adverse inference. The Department
further stated that because Goldlink did
not submit its response by the
Department’s deadline, Goldlink may
not be eligible to receive a separate rate
in this proceeding and thus would be
considered part of the PRC entity and
assigned the PRC–wide rate. The
Department granted Goldlink until April
28, 2008, to provide an explanation as
to why it did not submit a response to
the questionnaire, and stated the
Department would determine at that
time whether an extension was
warranted for Goldlink to submit its
questionnaire response. In its April 18,
2008, letters to Nantong Chemical,
Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust Chem, the
Department declared that as each
company did not provide a response to
the Department’s separate rate
certification, these companies may not
be eligible to receive a separate rate in
this proceeding and thus would be
considered part of the PRC entity and
assigned the PRC–wide rate. The
Department granted Nantong Chemical,
Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust Chem until
April 28, 2008, to provide an
explanation as to why they were unable
to submit a separate rate certification,
and stated the Department would
determine at that time whether an
extension was warranted for each
company to submit a separate rate
certification. None of the four
companies responded to the
Department’s April 18, 2008, letters by
the established deadline.
On April 29, 2008, Tianjin Hanchem
submitted a letter stating it did not make
any sales or exports during the POR,
and explaining it did not respond to the
Department’s separate rate application/
certification letter because it was not
aware it needed to respond when it had
no shipments to the United States. On
May 7, 2008, Trust Chem filed a letter
stating it had no shipments and no sales
of CVP 23 during the POR.
On July 17, 2008, the Department sent
another separate rate application/
certification to one company, Ganguink,
because the Department found the
separate rate application/certification
sent to this company on March 3, 2008,
had not been delivered. For information
related to the delivery of this document,
see the Delivery Tracking Memorandum
at Attachment 5. The Department did
not receive a response from Ganguink.
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices
Period of Review
The POR is December December 1,
2006, through November 30, 2007.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is carbazole violet pigment 23
identified as Color Index No. 51319 and
Chemical Abstract No. 6358–30–1, with
the chemical name of diindolo [3,2–
b:3’,2’-m] triphenodioxazine, 8,18–
dichloro–5, 15–diethy–5,15–dihydro-,
and molecular formula of
C34H22Cl2N4O2.1 The subject
merchandise includes the crude
pigment in any form (e.g., dry powder,
paste, wet cake) and finished pigment in
the form of presscake and dry color.
Pigment dispersions in any form (e.g.,
pigments dispersed in oleoresins,
flammable solvents, water) are not
included within the scope of this order.
The merchandise subject to this order is
classifiable under subheading
3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of this order is dispositive.
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the
Department’s regulations provides that
the Department will rescind an
administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its
request for review within 90 days of the
date of publication of the notice of
initiation of the requested review, or
withdraws at a later date if the
Department determines it is reasonable
to extend the time limit for withdrawing
the request.
In this case, the 90–day deadline to
withdraw requests for an administrative
review fell on April 28, 2008. However,
on April 25, 2008, petitioners requested
that the Department extend this
deadline by ten days. Consequently, on
April 28, 2008, the Department granted
petitioners’ request and extended the
deadline until May 8, 2008. On May 8,
2008, petitioners submitted a letter
withdrawing their request for an
administrative review of Nantong
Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust
Chem.
Thus, the petitioners timely withdrew
their requests for an administrative
review of Nantong Chemical, Tianjin
Hanchem, and Trust Chem within the
extended deadline. Because the
1 The bracketed section of the product
description, [3,2-b:3’,2’-m], is not business
proprietary information, but is part of the chemical
nomenclature.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:59 Sep 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
petitioners were the only party to
request administrative review of each of
these companies, we are rescinding this
administrative review with respect to
Nantong Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem,
and Trust Chem. Each of these three
companies has a separate rate, and we
will issue liquidation instructions for
these companies’ entries 15 days after
publication of this notice.
Non–Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non–market
economy (NME) country. See, e.g.,
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 72 FR 51588,
51590 (September 10, 2007), unchanged
in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 73 FR 14216
(March 17, 2008). Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. See, e.g., Carbazole Violet
Pigment 23 From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR
65073, 65074 (November 7, 2006)
unchanged in Carbazole Violet Pigment
23 from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 26589
(May 10, 2007). None of the parties to
this proceeding have contested such
treatment.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise in an NME
country subject to review this single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently
independent from government control
of its export activities to be entitled to
a separate company–specific rate, the
Department analyzes each entity
exporting the subject merchandise
under a test arising from Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52009
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at
Comment 1 (May 6, 1991), as amplified
by Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide from the People’s Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586–7 (May 2,
1994). The Department assigns separate
rates in NME cases only if respondents
can affirmatively demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export
activities. The Department has
preliminarily determined that none of
the 11 respondents remaining in this
administrative review qualify for a
separate rate. For more information, see
‘‘The PRC–Wide Entity’’ section below.
The PRC–Wide Entity
Based on a timely request by
petitioners, the Department originally
initiated this administrative review with
respect to 14 companies. As noted
above, petitioners timely withdrew their
request for review of three of these
companies. Of the 11 companies
remaining in this review, none of them
responded to the Department’s separate
rate application/certification, including
the mandatory respondent in this
review, Goldlink, which also did not
respond to the Department’s
antidumping questionnaire. See
‘‘Background’’ section above. Thus,
Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest,
Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong
Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical have not
demonstrated the lack of both de jure
and de facto government control over
export activities. Therefore, we have
preliminarily determined that none of
these 11 exporters have demonstrated
their eligibility for separate–rate status.
As a result, the Department is treating
these 11 companies as part of the PRC–
wide entity. Because we have
determined Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui
Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink,
Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem,
Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow,
Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical are
part of the PRC–wide entity, the PRC–
wide entity is now under review.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates
that the Department use the facts
available if necessary information is not
available on the record of an
antidumping proceeding. In addition,
section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that if an interested party or any other
person: (A) withholds information that
has been requested by the administering
authority; (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadlines for the
submission of the information or in the
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
52010
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices
form and manner requested, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as
provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the
Department shall, subject to section
782(d) of the Act, use the facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this
title.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
promptly inform the party submitting
the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act
additionally states that if the party
submits further information that is
unsatisfactory or untimely, the
administering authority may, subject to
subsection (e), disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all the applicable requirements
established by the administering
authority if: (1) the information is
submitted by the deadline established
for its submission; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting
the requirements established by the
administering authority with respect to
the information; and (5) the information
can be used without undue difficulties.
The Department finds that the PRC–
wide entity (including Aesthetic
Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic,
Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong
Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical) did not respond
to our requests for information and that
necessary information is not available
on the record. Therefore, we have
preliminarily determined that the use of
facts otherwise available is warranted
for the PRC–wide entity under sections
776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
As stated above in the ‘‘Background’’
section, on February 25, 2008, the
Department selected Goldlink, the
largest exporter of subject merchandise
by volume, as a mandatory respondent.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:59 Sep 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
On February 26, 2008, the Department
sent an antidumping questionnaire to
Goldlink. On March 3, 2008, the
Department also sent a separate rate
application/certification to Goldlink.
Goldlink did not respond to the
questionnaire or the separate rate
application/certification. On April 18,
2008, the Department sent a letter to
Goldlink stating that since it did not
respond to the antidumping
questionnaire, the Department may
resort to the use of facts available with
an adverse inference. The Department
also informed Goldlink that because it
did not submit its response by the
Department’s deadline, Goldlink may
not be eligible to receive a separate rate
in this proceeding and thus would be
considered part of the PRC entity and
assigned the PRC–wide rate. In its April
18, 2008, letter, the Department granted
Goldlink until April 28, 2008, to
provide an explanation as to why it did
not submit a response to the
questionnaire and stated it would
determine at that time whether an
extension was warranted for Goldlink to
submit its questionnaire response.
Goldlink did not respond to the
Department’s April 18, 2008, letter. The
Department has no information on the
record for Goldlink with which to
calculate a dumping margin or
determine if it is eligible for a separate
rate in this proceeding, and hence we
preliminarily find that Goldlink has
significantly impeded the proceeding by
withholding information and failing to
respond to the Department’s request for
information within the specified
deadlines. Therefore, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A),(B),
and (C) of the Act, the Department
preliminarily determines that the
application of facts available is
appropriate. Because Goldlink did not
respond to the Department’s requests for
information, sections 782(d) and (e) of
the Act are not applicable.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use an adverse
inference in applying the facts
otherwise available when a party has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Section 776(b)
of the Act also authorizes the
Department to use as AFA information
derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
we find the PRC–wide entity, which
includes Goldlink and the other
companies remaining under review that
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
did not provide separate rate
applications or certifications (Aesthetic
Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic,
Ganguink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–
Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai
Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng
Chemical), failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability. As noted
above, the PRC–wide entity did not
provide the requested information. This
information was in the sole possession
of the respondents, and could not be
obtained otherwise. Thus, because the
PRC–wide entity refused to participate
fully in this proceeding, we
preliminarily determine that in selecting
from among the facts otherwise
available, an adverse inference is
warranted for the PRC–wide entity
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By
using an inference that is adverse to the
interests of the PRC–wide entity, we
ensure the companies that are part of
the PRC–wide entity will not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than had they cooperated
fully in this review.
Selection of Adverse Facts Available
Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c) authorize the
Department to rely on information
derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final
determination in the investigation; (3)
any previous review or determination;
or (4) any information placed on the
record. In reviews, the Department
normally selects, as AFA, the highest
rate on the record of any segment of the
proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s
Republic of China; Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504,
19506 (April 21, 2003). The U.S. Court
of International Trade (CIT) and the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
have consistently upheld the
Department’s practice in this regard. See
Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States,
899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990)
(Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United
States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT
2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total
AFA rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in a
less–than-fair–value investigation); see
also Kompass Food Trading Int’l v.
United States, 24 CIT 678, 683–84
(2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total
AFA rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different, fully
cooperative respondent); and Shanghai
Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339,
1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01
percent total AFA rate, the highest
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices
available dumping margin from a
different respondent in a previous
administrative review).
The Department’s practice when
selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to
ensure that the margin is ‘‘sufficiently
adverse so as to effectuate the statutory
purposes of the adverse facts available
rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely
manner.’’ See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
The Department’s practice also ensures
‘‘that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See
Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316,
vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 870; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December
23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate
balance between providing respondents
with an incentive to respond accurately
and imposing a rate that is reasonably
related to the respondent’s prior
commercial activity, selecting the
highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common
sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of
current margins, because, if it were not
so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
would have produced current
information showing the margin to be
less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at
1190.
Consistent with the statute, court
precedent, and its normal practice, the
Department has preliminarily assigned
the rate of 241.32 percent, the highest
rate determined in any segment of this
proceeding, to the PRC–wide entity,
which includes Aesthetic Colortech,
Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink,
Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–
Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai
Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng
Chemical, as AFA. See Final Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to United
States Court of International Trade
Remand Order, Goldlink Industries Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d
1323 (CIT May 4, 2006), affirmed by the
CIT on December 8, 2006 (CVP 23 from
the PRC – Remand on Final
Determination); see also Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Amended
Final Determination in Accordance with
Court Decision, 72 FR 15101 (March 30,
2007) (CVP 23 from the PRC – Amended
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:59 Sep 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
Final Determination). As discussed
further below, this rate has been
corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information Used as Adverse Facts
Available
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, where the Department selects from
among the facts otherwise available and
relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the
Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information
from independent sources reasonably at
the Department’s disposal. Secondary
information is described in the SAA as
‘‘{i}nformation derived from the
petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination covering the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870.
The SAA states that ‘‘corroborate’’
means to determine that the information
used has probative value. Id. The
Department has determined that to have
probative value, information must be
reliable and relevant. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, from Japan;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November
6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and
Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997). The SAA also states
that independent sources used to
corroborate such evidence may include,
for example, published price lists,
official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular
investigation or review. See SAA at 870;
see also Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra–High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators
from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16,
2003), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra–High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators
from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5,
2003); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70
FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52011
To be considered corroborated,
information must be found to be both
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types
of information, such as input costs or
selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated
dumping margins. The only sources for
calculated margins are administrative
determinations. The AFA rate we are
applying for the current review was
calculated pursuant to a remand order
from the CIT with respect to the original
investigation of CVP 23 from the PRC.
See CVP 23 from the PRC – Remand on
Final Determination and CVP 23 from
the PRC – Amended Final
Determination. Furthermore, no
information has been presented in the
current review that calls into question
the reliability of this information. Thus,
the Department finds that the
information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the
Department will disregard the margin
and determine an appropriate margin.
See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996). Similarly, the
Department does not apply a margin
that has been discredited. See D & L
Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d
1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the
Department will not use a margin that
has been judicially invalidated.) The
AFA rate we are applying for the instant
review was calculated based on export
price information from the petition, as
well as on production data of a
respondent in the investigation and the
most appropriate surrogate value
information available to the Department.
Furthermore, the calculation of this
margin was subject to comment from
interested parties in the proceeding. See
CVP 23 from the PRC – Remand on
Final Determination and CVP 23 from
the PRC – Amended Final
Determination. Moreover, as there is no
information on the record of this review
that demonstrates this rate is not
appropriately used as AFA, we
determine this rate has relevance.
As the AFA rate is both reliable and
relevant, we find it has probative value.
As a result, the Department
preliminarily determines that the AFA
margin (i.e., the PRC–wide rate from
CVP 23 from the PRC – Remand on
Final Determination and CVP 23 from
the PRC – Amended Final
Determination) is corroborated for the
purposes of this administrative review
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
52012
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices
and may reasonably be applied to the
PRC–wide entity, which includes
Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest,
Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong
Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical. Because these are
the preliminary results of review, the
Department will consider all margins on
the record at the time of the final results
of review for the purpose of determining
the most appropriate final margin for
Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest,
Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong
Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer
Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139
(January 7, 2000), unchanged in Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade
Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian
Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000).
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following antidumping duty margins
exist for the period December 1, 2006,
through November 30, 2007:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Exporter/Manufacturer
Margin
(percent)
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. Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 37
days after the date of publication, or the
first business day thereafter, unless the
Department alters the date pursuant to
19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).
The Department intends to 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 assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
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.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash–deposit
PRC–Wide Rate (including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui
requirements will be effective upon
Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink,
publication of the final results for
Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics,
shipments of the subject merchandise
Hygeia–Chem, Pudong Prime,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol,
for consumption on or after the
and Yangcheng Chemical) .....
241.32
publication date of the final results, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Schedule for Final Results of Review
Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for PRC
Interested parties may submit case
exporters who received a separate rate
briefs no later than 30 days after the
in a prior segment of the proceeding
date of publication of these preliminary (i.e., Nantong Chemical, Tianjin
results of review. See 19 CFR
Hanchem, and Trust Chem) will
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited continue to be the rate assigned in that
to issues raised in the case briefs, may
segment of the proceeding; (2) for all
be filed no later than five days after the
other PRC exporters of subject
time limit for filing the case briefs. See
merchandise which have not been
19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit
found to be entitled to a separate rate
case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding (including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui
are requested to submit with each
Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink,
argument (1) a statement of the issue
Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem,
and (2) a brief summary of the
Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow,
argument. Parties are also encouraged to Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical), the
provide a summary of the arguments not cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide
to exceed five pages and a table of
rate of 241.32 percent; (3) for all non–
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
PRC exporters of subject merchandise,
Interested parties who wish to request the cash–deposit rate will be the rate
a hearing or to participate if one is
applicable to the PRC supplier of that
requested must submit a written request exporter.
to the Assistant Secretary for Import
These deposit requirements shall
Administration within 30 days of
remain in effect until publication of the
publication of these preliminary results. final results of the next administrative
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should review.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:59 Sep 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–20750 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–533–838
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
an interested party, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on
carbazole violet pigment 23 from India.
The review covers two manufacturers/
exporters, Alpanil Industries and
Pidilite Industries Limited. The period
of review is December 1, 2006, through
November 30, 2007. We have
preliminarily determined that Alpanil
Industries and Pidilite Industries
Limited made sales below normal value.
We invite interested parties to comment
on these preliminary results. Parties
who submit comments in this review
are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of each issue and
a brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yang Jin Chun or Hermes Pinilla, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482–
3477, respectively.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08SEN1.SGM
08SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52007-52012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20750]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-892
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbazole violet
pigment 23 (CVP 23) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The
period of review (POR) is December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007.
We preliminarily determine that 11 companies have failed to cooperate
by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with our requests
for information and, as a result, should be assigned a rate based on
adverse facts available (AFA). We are also rescinding this
administrative review with respect to three companies. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2657 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 52008]]
Background
On December 29, 2004, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on CVP 23 from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole
Violet Pigment 23 From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 77987
(December 29, 2004). On December 3, 2007, the Department published
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR
67889 (December 3, 2007). On December 31, 2007, Nation Ford Chemical
Company and Sun Chemical Corporation (collectively, petitioners)
requested an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise
made during the POR by 14 Chinese exporters, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(1). The 14 exporters included in petitioners' request for
review were: Aesthetic Colortech (Shanghai) Company, Limited (Aesthetic
Colortech); Anhui Worldbest IE Company, Limited (Anhui Worldbest);
Cidic Company, Limited (Cidic); Ganguink Company, Pigment Division
(Ganguink); Goldlink Industries Company, Limited (Goldlink); Hunan
Sunlogistics International Company, Limited (Hunan Sunlogistics);
Hygeia-Chem (Shanghai) Company, Limited (Hygeia-Chem); Nantong Haidi
Chemical Company, Limited (Nantong Chemical); Pudong Prime
International Logistic Incorporated (Pudong Prime); Shanghai Rainbow
Dyes Import and Export (Shanghai Rainbow); Sinocol Corporation, Limited
(Sinocol); Tianjin Hanchem International Trading Company, Limited
(Tianjin Hanchem); Trust Chem Company, Limited (Trust Chem); and
Yangcheng Tiacheng Chemical Company, Limited (Yangcheng Chemical).
On January 28, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative
review of these 14 companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation
in Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 2008). On February 1, 2008, the
Department issued a letter to interested parties announcing its
intention to limit the number of respondents selected for review and to
select respondents based on CBP data for U.S. imports of CVP 23 during
the POR. On February 4, 2008, the Department requested that petitioners
submit addresses for each of the companies included in their request
for review; petitioners provided address information to the Department
on that same date. On February 5, 2008, the Department released the
letter regarding its respondent-selection methodology and the CBP
import data to the 14 Chinese exporters and extended the deadline for
parties to submit comments until February 12, 2008. For information
related to the delivery of these letters, see the memorandum entitled
``Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China:
Delivery of Various Documents to Respondents in the 2006-2007
Administrative Review,'' dated August 27, 2008 (Delivery Tracking
Memorandum) at Attachment 1. No interested parties submitted comments
to the Department.
On February 25, 2008, because it was not feasible to examine all 14
exporters of the subject merchandise, for purposes of this
administrative review, the Department selected the largest company by
export volume, Goldlink, as a mandatory respondent in accordance with
section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See
Memorandum from Blanche Ziv to Wendy J. Frankel, ``2006-2007
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23
from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents,'' dated
February 25, 2008. On February 26, 2008, the Department issued an
antidumping questionnaire to Goldlink. For information regarding the
delivery of this questionnaire, see the Delivery Tracking Memorandum at
Attachment 2. Goldlink did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire.
On March 3, 2008, the Department sent separate rate applications/
certifications to the following 12 Chinese exporters of CVP 23:
Aesthetic Colortech; Anhui Worldbest; Cidic; Ganguink; Goldlink; Hunan
Sunlogistics; Nantong Chemical; Pudong Prime; Shanghai Rainbow;
Sinocol; Tianjin Hanchem; and Trust Chem. On March 4, 2008, the
Department sent separate rates applications/certifications to Hygeia-
Chem and Yangcheng Chemical after petitioners provided more accurate
addresses for these two exporters. For information regarding the
delivery of the separate rate applications/certifications, see the
Delivery Tracking Memorandum at Attachment 3. The Department did not
receive a response to the separate rate application/certification from
any of the 14 companies.
On April 18, 2008, the Department sent a second letter to each of
the four companies that had been assigned a separate rate in a prior
segment of this proceeding, namely, Goldlink, Nantong Chemical, Tianjin
Hanchem, and Trust Chem. For information regarding the delivery of
these letters, see the Delivery Tracking Memorandum at Attachment 4. In
its letter to Goldlink, the Department stated that since Goldlink did
not respond to the antidumping questionnaire, the Department may resort
to the use of facts available with an adverse inference. The Department
further stated that because Goldlink did not submit its response by the
Department's deadline, Goldlink may not be eligible to receive a
separate rate in this proceeding and thus would be considered part of
the PRC entity and assigned the PRC-wide rate. The Department granted
Goldlink until April 28, 2008, to provide an explanation as to why it
did not submit a response to the questionnaire, and stated the
Department would determine at that time whether an extension was
warranted for Goldlink to submit its questionnaire response. In its
April 18, 2008, letters to Nantong Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust
Chem, the Department declared that as each company did not provide a
response to the Department's separate rate certification, these
companies may not be eligible to receive a separate rate in this
proceeding and thus would be considered part of the PRC entity and
assigned the PRC-wide rate. The Department granted Nantong Chemical,
Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust Chem until April 28, 2008, to provide an
explanation as to why they were unable to submit a separate rate
certification, and stated the Department would determine at that time
whether an extension was warranted for each company to submit a
separate rate certification. None of the four companies responded to
the Department's April 18, 2008, letters by the established deadline.
On April 29, 2008, Tianjin Hanchem submitted a letter stating it
did not make any sales or exports during the POR, and explaining it did
not respond to the Department's separate rate application/certification
letter because it was not aware it needed to respond when it had no
shipments to the United States. On May 7, 2008, Trust Chem filed a
letter stating it had no shipments and no sales of CVP 23 during the
POR.
On July 17, 2008, the Department sent another separate rate
application/certification to one company, Ganguink, because the
Department found the separate rate application/certification sent to
this company on March 3, 2008, had not been delivered. For information
related to the delivery of this document, see the Delivery Tracking
Memorandum at Attachment 5. The Department did not receive a response
from Ganguink.
[[Page 52009]]
Period of Review
The POR is December December 1, 2006, through November 30, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this order is carbazole violet pigment
23 identified as Color Index No. 51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358-
30-1, with the chemical name of diindolo [lsqb]3,2-b:3',2'-m[rsqb]
triphenodioxazine, 8,18-dichloro-5, 15-diethy-5,15-dihydro-, and
molecular formula of C34H22Cl2N4O2.\1\ The subject merchandise includes
the crude pigment in any form (e.g., dry powder, paste, wet cake) and
finished pigment in the form of presscake and dry color. Pigment
dispersions in any form (e.g., pigments dispersed in oleoresins,
flammable solvents, water) are not included within the scope of this
order. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under
subheading 3204.17.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The bracketed section of the product description, [lsqb]3,2-
b:3',2'-m[rsqb], is not business proprietary information, but is
part of the chemical nomenclature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that
the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws its request for review within 90 days of
the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested
review, or withdraws at a later date if the Department determines it is
reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request.
In this case, the 90-day deadline to withdraw requests for an
administrative review fell on April 28, 2008. However, on April 25,
2008, petitioners requested that the Department extend this deadline by
ten days. Consequently, on April 28, 2008, the Department granted
petitioners' request and extended the deadline until May 8, 2008. On
May 8, 2008, petitioners submitted a letter withdrawing their request
for an administrative review of Nantong Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and
Trust Chem.
Thus, the petitioners timely withdrew their requests for an
administrative review of Nantong Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust
Chem within the extended deadline. Because the petitioners were the
only party to request administrative review of each of these companies,
we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Nantong
Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust Chem. Each of these three
companies has a separate rate, and we will issue liquidation
instructions for these companies' entries 15 days after publication of
this notice.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (NME) country. See, e.g.,
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission of Review, 72 FR 51588, 51590 (September 10, 2007),
unchanged in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 73 FR 14216 (March 17, 2008).
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked
by the administering authority. See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) unchanged in Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007). None of the parties
to this proceeding have contested such treatment.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign
all exporters of merchandise in an NME country subject to review this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently independent from government control
of its export activities to be entitled to a separate company-specific
rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-7 (May 2, 1994). The
Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can
affirmatively demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export activities. The Department has
preliminarily determined that none of the 11 respondents remaining in
this administrative review qualify for a separate rate. For more
information, see ``The PRC-Wide Entity'' section below.
The PRC-Wide Entity
Based on a timely request by petitioners, the Department originally
initiated this administrative review with respect to 14 companies. As
noted above, petitioners timely withdrew their request for review of
three of these companies. Of the 11 companies remaining in this review,
none of them responded to the Department's separate rate application/
certification, including the mandatory respondent in this review,
Goldlink, which also did not respond to the Department's antidumping
questionnaire. See ``Background'' section above. Thus, Aesthetic
Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical have not demonstrated the lack of both de jure and
de facto government control over export activities. Therefore, we have
preliminarily determined that none of these 11 exporters have
demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. As a result,
the Department is treating these 11 companies as part of the PRC-wide
entity. Because we have determined Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui
Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem,
Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical are
part of the PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity is now under review.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the
facts available if necessary information is not available on the record
of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act
provides that if an interested party or any other person: (A) withholds
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B)
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission
of the information or in the
[[Page 52010]]
form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under
this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the Department
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting
the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or
explain the deficiency. Section 782(d) of the Act additionally states
that if the party submits further information that is unsatisfactory or
untimely, the administering authority may, subject to subsection (e),
disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses. Section
782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted by an interested party and is
necessary to the determination but does not meet all the applicable
requirements established by the administering authority if: (1) the
information is submitted by the deadline established for its
submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated
that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information
and meeting the requirements established by the administering authority
with respect to the information; and (5) the information can be used
without undue difficulties.
The Department finds that the PRC-wide entity (including Aesthetic
Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical) did not respond to our requests for information and
that necessary information is not available on the record. Therefore,
we have preliminarily determined that the use of facts otherwise
available is warranted for the PRC-wide entity under sections 776(a)(1)
and (2) of the Act.
As stated above in the ``Background'' section, on February 25,
2008, the Department selected Goldlink, the largest exporter of subject
merchandise by volume, as a mandatory respondent. On February 26, 2008,
the Department sent an antidumping questionnaire to Goldlink. On March
3, 2008, the Department also sent a separate rate application/
certification to Goldlink. Goldlink did not respond to the
questionnaire or the separate rate application/certification. On April
18, 2008, the Department sent a letter to Goldlink stating that since
it did not respond to the antidumping questionnaire, the Department may
resort to the use of facts available with an adverse inference. The
Department also informed Goldlink that because it did not submit its
response by the Department's deadline, Goldlink may not be eligible to
receive a separate rate in this proceeding and thus would be considered
part of the PRC entity and assigned the PRC-wide rate. In its April 18,
2008, letter, the Department granted Goldlink until April 28, 2008, to
provide an explanation as to why it did not submit a response to the
questionnaire and stated it would determine at that time whether an
extension was warranted for Goldlink to submit its questionnaire
response. Goldlink did not respond to the Department's April 18, 2008,
letter. The Department has no information on the record for Goldlink
with which to calculate a dumping margin or determine if it is eligible
for a separate rate in this proceeding, and hence we preliminarily find
that Goldlink has significantly impeded the proceeding by withholding
information and failing to respond to the Department's request for
information within the specified deadlines. Therefore, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(A),(B), and (C) of the Act, the
Department preliminarily determines that the application of facts
available is appropriate. Because Goldlink did not respond to the
Department's requests for information, sections 782(d) and (e) of the
Act are not applicable.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an
adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a
party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act
also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from
the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative
review, or other information placed on the record.
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find the PRC-wide entity,
which includes Goldlink and the other companies remaining under review
that did not provide separate rate applications or certifications
(Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical), failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability. As noted above, the PRC-wide entity did not provide the
requested information. This information was in the sole possession of
the respondents, and could not be obtained otherwise. Thus, because the
PRC-wide entity refused to participate fully in this proceeding, we
preliminarily determine that in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted for the PRC-wide
entity pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By using an inference
that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity, we ensure the
companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully
in this review.
Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c) authorize the Department to rely on information
derived from: (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in the
investigation; (3) any previous review or determination; or (4) any
information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally
selects, as AFA, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the
proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's
Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 19506 (April 21, 2003). The U.S.
Court of International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice in
this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185,
1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346
F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent
in a less-than-fair-value investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading
Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683-84 (2000) (upholding a 51.16
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339,
1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest
[[Page 52011]]
available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous
administrative review).
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is
``sufficiently adverse so as to effectuate the statutory purposes of
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.''
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909,
8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures ``that
the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) (SAA) at 870; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December
23, 2004). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing
respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate
that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial
activity, selecting the highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense
inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence
of current margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing
of the rule, would have produced current information showing the margin
to be less.'' See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190.
Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal
practice, the Department has preliminarily assigned the rate of 241.32
percent, the highest rate determined in any segment of this proceeding,
to the PRC-wide entity, which includes Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui
Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem,
Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical, as
AFA. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to United States
Court of International Trade Remand Order, Goldlink Industries Co.,
Ltd. v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (CIT May 4, 2006), affirmed
by the CIT on December 8, 2006 (CVP 23 from the PRC - Remand on Final
Determination); see also Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Determination in Accordance
with Court Decision, 72 FR 15101 (March 30, 2007) (CVP 23 from the PRC
- Amended Final Determination). As discussed further below, this rate
has been corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is
described in the SAA as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination
covering the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section
751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA
states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information
used has probative value. Id. The Department has determined that to
have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished,
From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996),
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in
Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). The SAA also states that
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the
particular investigation or review. See SAA at 870; see also Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and
Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR
35627 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic
Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live
Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005).
To be considered corroborated, information must be found to be both
reliable and relevant. Unlike other types of information, such as input
costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for
calculated dumping margins. The only sources for calculated margins are
administrative determinations. The AFA rate we are applying for the
current review was calculated pursuant to a remand order from the CIT
with respect to the original investigation of CVP 23 from the PRC. See
CVP 23 from the PRC - Remand on Final Determination and CVP 23 from the
PRC - Amended Final Determination. Furthermore, no information has been
presented in the current review that calls into question the
reliability of this information. Thus, the Department finds that the
information is reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA,
the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate
margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22,
1996). Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220,
1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has
been judicially invalidated.) The AFA rate we are applying for the
instant review was calculated based on export price information from
the petition, as well as on production data of a respondent in the
investigation and the most appropriate surrogate value information
available to the Department. Furthermore, the calculation of this
margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the
proceeding. See CVP 23 from the PRC - Remand on Final Determination and
CVP 23 from the PRC - Amended Final Determination. Moreover, as there
is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates this
rate is not appropriately used as AFA, we determine this rate has
relevance.
As the AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we find it has
probative value. As a result, the Department preliminarily determines
that the AFA margin (i.e., the PRC-wide rate from CVP 23 from the PRC -
Remand on Final Determination and CVP 23 from the PRC - Amended Final
Determination) is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative
review
[[Page 52012]]
and may reasonably be applied to the PRC-wide entity, which includes
Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan
Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical. Because these are the preliminary results of
review, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the
time of the final results of review for the purpose of determining the
most appropriate final margin for Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest,
Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem, Pudong
Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid
Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation, 65 FR
1139 (January 7, 2000), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate
from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000).
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty
margins exist for the period December 1, 2006, through November 30,
2007:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter/Manufacturer (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate (including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui 241.32
Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics,
Hygeia-Chem, Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and
Yangcheng Chemical)........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule for Final Results of Review
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time
limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who
submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief
summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a
summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should
contain the following information: (1) the party's name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the
issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to
those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the
first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1).
The Department intends to 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 assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of the final results of 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.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results for shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters
who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding
(i.e., Nantong Chemical, Tianjin Hanchem, and Trust Chem) will continue
to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (2) for all
other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to
be entitled to a separate rate (including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui
Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia-Chem,
Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical), the
cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 241.32 percent; (3) for
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate
will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(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 notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[lsqb]FR Doc. E8-20750 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am[rsqb]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
