Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 27104-27109 [E9-13340]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 108 (Monday, June 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27104-27109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13340]


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

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, 2007, through May 31, 2008. This administrative 
review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, i.e., 
Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (``Jiheng'').
    We preliminarily determine that Jiheng 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2009.

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 
9, 2008, 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, 2007, through May 31, 2008.\2\ On 
June 30, 2008, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), Jiheng, a 
foreign producer/exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the 
Department review its sales of subject merchandise. On June 30, 2008, 
Clearon Corporation (``Clearon'') and Occidental Chemical Corporation 
(``OxyChem''), Petitioners in the underlying investigation, 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, 73 FR 32557 (June 9, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 30, 2008, the Department initiated the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isos from the PRC 
covering the period June 1, 2007 through May 31, 2008.\3\ On September 
5, 2008, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Jiheng. On October 31, 2008, the Department requested that the Office 
of Policy provide a list of surrogate countries for this review which 
it did on November 3, 2008.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral 
of Administrative Review 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
    \4\ See Memorandum regarding ``Request for Surrogate-Country 
Selection: 2007-2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of 
China'' (October 31, 2008); see also Memorandum regarding 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries'' (November 3, 2008) (``Surrogate 
Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 6, 2008, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties seeking comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
values. On November 21, 2008, Jiheng submitted comments regarding the 
selection of a surrogate country. On December 1, 2008, Petitioners 
submitted publicly available information in order to value Jiheng's 
factors of production (``FOP''). On December 5, 2008, Jiheng submitted 
comments on Petitioners' December 1, 2008, surrogate value information. 
On May 5, 2009, Jiheng submitted additional surrogate value information 
from Chemical Weekly for certain chemicals used in its production of 
the subject merchandise.
    On October 8, 2008, Jiheng submitted its section A questionnaire 
response (``AQR''). On October 23, 2008, Jiheng submitted its sections 
C and D questionnaire responses (``CQR and DQR'', respectively). On 
October 29, 2008, Jiheng submitted its cost reconciliation. On November 
5, 2008, Petitioners submitted comments on Jiheng's AQR, CQR, and DQR. 
On December 16, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to

[[Page 27105]]

Jiheng. On January 8, 2009, Jiheng submitted its supplemental 
questionnaire response (``1\st\ SQR'').
    On February 10, 2009, Petitioners submitted comments on Jiheng's 
1\st\ SQR. On February 24, 2009, the Department issued a second 
supplemental questionnaire to Jiheng. On March 4, 2009, the Department 
published a notice in the Federal Register extending the time limit for 
the preliminary results of review until June 1, 2009.\5\ On March 18, 
2009, Jiheng submitted its second supplemental questionnaire response 
(``2\nd\ SQR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administration Review, 74 FR 9385 (March 4, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department verified the accuracy of Jiheng's submissions in 
Hengshui, China from March 30, 2009, through April 3, 2009. On May 5, 
2009, the Department requested that Jiheng submit a corrected U.S. 
sales database to include changes that Jiheng had reported as minor 
corrections prior to verification. On May 8, 2009, Jiheng submitted its 
revised U.S. sales database.

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

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy 
(``NME'') country in all past antidumping duty investigations and 
administrative reviews and continues to do so in this case.\6\ 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 Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008); and Folding Metal Tables 
and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum regarding ``Preliminary Results of the 2007-
2008 Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (June 1, 
2009) (``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate for 
this proceeding, the Department first determined that India, Indonesia, 
the Philippines, Colombia and Thailand are countries comparable to the 
PRC in terms of economic development. See Surrogate Country List. On 
November 6, 2008, the Department issued a request for interested 
parties to submit comments on surrogate country selection. On November 
21, 2008, Jiheng submitted comments regarding the selection of a 
surrogate country. On December 1, 2008, Petitioners submitted FOP 
surrogate value information that included several values obtained from 
India.
    Jiheng argues that the Department should continue to use India as a 
surrogate country for this segment of the proceeding, as it has in 
previous segments, because India produces comparable merchandise and 
there are publicly available data with which to value the reported FOP 
information in this case. 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 Jiheng and the Petitioners for our consideration as potential 
surrogate values is 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 value FOPs until 20 days after 
the date of publication of the preliminary results.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The 
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional, 
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.

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

[[Page 27106]]

Separate Rates

    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 country, then a 
separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is 
independent from government control.

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 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 AQR at Exhibit A3.1-A3.3.

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 
Jiheng demonstrates an absence of de facto government control with 
respect to Jiheng's exports of the merchandise under review, in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. See Jiheng's AQR at pages A-13 through A-19 and Jiheng's 
Verification Report dated May 11, 2009, at pages 7-8.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that:
    In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or 
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of 
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the 
normal course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date other 
than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different 
date better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer 
establishes the material terms of sale.
    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 for many of its sales the shipment date occurs on or before the 
invoice date. Jiheng also stated that selecting the shipment date as 
the date of sale insures a consistent methodology for selecting the 
date of sale with previous segments in which Jiheng has participated. 
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.\9\ Evidence on the 
record demonstrates that sometimes the shipment date occurs prior to 
the invoice date\10\ and 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.\11\ Finally, we applied the shipment date as the 
sale date in the prior POR.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 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.
    \10\ See Jiheng's CQR at page C-13.
    \11\ 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.
    \12\ See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 24943 (May 6, 2008) (unchanged in Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 
2008)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of chlorinated isos to the United States 
by Jiheng 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 sold the subject merchandise directly 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. To this price, we added amounts for components that were 
supplied free of charge or reimbursed by the

[[Page 27107]]

customer, where applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(A) of the 
Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Memorandum regarding ``Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Hebei Jiheng 
Chemical Company Ltd. (June 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 a 
customer,\14\ consistent with the Department's practice, we added to 
the U.S. price paid by the Jiheng's customer the built-up cost (i.e., 
the surrogate value for these raw materials and packing materials 
multiplied by the reported FOPs for these items).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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-8.
    \15\ 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 the respondent for materials, energy, labor, by-
products, and packing. These reported FOPs included various FOPs 
provided free of charge by a customer as discussed in the ``Export 
Price'' section, above.
    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.\16\ 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 page D-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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 the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have 
disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be 
subsidized, such as those from 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.\17\ 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 Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand in 
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., Frontseating Service Valves from the People's 
Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 62952 
(October 22, 2008) (unchanged in Frontseating Service Valves from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009); 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 for the POR. 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, 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.
    To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by 
www.infobanc.com, ``The Great Indian Bazaar, Gateway to Overseas 
Markets.'' The logistics section of the website contains inland freight 
truck rates between many large Indian cities. The truck freight rates 
are for the period August 2008 through September 2008. Since these 
dates are not contemporaneous with the POR, we deflated the rates using 
Indian WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We used the rail freight rates as used in the preceding 
administrative review published by www.indianrailways.com to value rail 
freight. Since the rail freight rates are not contemporaneous with the 
POR, we inflated the rail freight rates using Indian WPI. 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 from 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 customer, consistent with the Department's practice and 
section

[[Page 27108]]

773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, 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.\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 price data for small, medium, and 
large industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of 
the Government of India in its publication entitled ``Electricity 
Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,'' dated 
July 2006. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, 
publicly-available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates 
charged to industries in India. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    To value water, we used the revised Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation (``MIDC'') water rates available at https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply, which we deflated using Indian WPI. See 
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    To value steam coal, we used data obtained for categories B and C 
for coal reported in the 2007 Indian Bureau of Mines' Minerals Yearbook 
adjusted for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    To value steam, we used data obtained from the Indian financial 
statements of Hindalco Industries Limited. 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, as confirmed at verification, that 
Jiheng has appropriately reported its by-products and, therefore, we 
have granted Jiheng a by-product offset for the quantities of these 
reported by-products. We valued chlorine and hydrogen gas with data 
obtained from Indian financial statements for companies that produce 
and sell both chlorine and hydrogen gas. 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.\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries (May 14, 2008) 
(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 2005, ILO, (Geneva: 2005), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage rates range from 2004 
to 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Jiheng's plants. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    None of the interested parties in this review provided financial 
statements for use in calculating a surrogate value for factory 
overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and 
profit for the preliminary results. Therefore, for factory overhead, 
SG&A, and profit values, we used information from Kanoria Chemicals and 
Industries Limited for the year ending March 31, 2007, which was used 
in the preceding administrative review and which we placed on the 
record of this administrative review. 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 margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd..............................        3.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 five 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. If a request for a hearing is 
made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to 
be held 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 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 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates 
for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has 
reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated 
for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this 
amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the 
assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' 
entries

[[Page 27109]]

during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

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 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, 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: June 1, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-13340 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S