[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 1994)]
[Notices]
[Pages 565-570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-160]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 5, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-825]

 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Sebacic Acid From the People's 
Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith, Office of Antidumping 
Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that sebacic acid from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins are 
shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (58 FR 43339, August 16, 
1993), the following events have occurred.
    On August 16, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
sent the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation 
(MOFTEC) a mini-Section A questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding 
sales volume and value).
    On September 2, 1993, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
notified the Department of its preliminary determination that there is 
a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports of sebacic acid from the PRC 
that are allegedly sold at less than fair value.
    On September 27, 1993, MOFTEC submitted its mini-Section A response 
and on September 30, 1993, the Department sent MOFTEC the antidumping 
questionnaire. (This antidumping questionnaire is divided into three 
sections and two attachments: (1) Section A requests general 
information on each company; (2) Section C requests information on, and 
a listing of, U.S. sales made during the period of the investigation 
(POI); (3) Section D requests information on the production process; 
(4) Attachment I requests information for a market-oriented industry 
(MOI) claim; and (5) Attachment II requests information for a separate 
rates claim.) As a courtesy, we sent a copy of the questionnaire to 
those companies identified as possible exporters of sebacic acid to the 
United States.
    On September 30, 1993, we requested that the petitioner, four 
exporters (``respondents'') who had entered a notice of appearance 
before the Department (Sinochem International Chemicals Company 
(Sinochem International), Sinochem Jiangsu Import & Export Corporation, 
Tianjin Chemicals Import & Export Corporation (Tianjin), and Guangdong 
Chemicals Import & Export Corporation (Guangdong)), and MOFTEC submit 
any publicly available published information that they wished the 
Department to consider when valuing the factors of production in this 
investigation.
    On October 22, 1993, the same four exporters who had entered a 
notice of appearance submitted responses to Section A of the 
questionnaire. On October 29, 1993, we sent each company a Section A 
deficiency questionnaire.
    On November 1, 1993, the four exporters submitted responses to 
Sections C and D and Attachments I and II of the questionnaire. On 
November 9, 1993, we sent MOFTEC an Attachment I supplemental 
questionnaire. Also on November 9, 1993, we sent the four exporters 
deficiency questionnaires on Sections C and D and Attachment I.
    On November 12, 1993, we received Section A deficiency responses 
from the four exporters.
    On November 16, 1993, the petitioner and the four exporters 
submitted publicly available published information.
    On November 16, 1993, we sent a letter to each of the 13 non-
responding PRC exporters to whom we had sent a copy of the 
questionnaire. We again requested that they respond to the Department's 
questionnaire or provide a certification that they did not export or 
sell subject merchandise during the POI.
    Also on November 16, 1993, we sent supplemental Attachment II 
questionnaires to MOFTEC and the four responding exporters.
    On November 19, 1993, the Department sent to the petitioner and the 
four exporters a publicly available published information deficiency 
questionnaire. On November 23, 1993, the petitioner provided comments 
on the information submitted by the four exporters.
    On November 26, 1993, we sent a letter to the Guangdong and Jiangsu 
provincial governments and the Beijing municipal government requesting 
information in order to more completely evaluate the issue of whether 
the four exporters should receive separate antidumping duty rates.
    On November 29, 1993, we received Sections C and D deficiency 
responses from the four exporters.
    From November 29, 1993, through December 3, 1993, we received 
certifications from three Chinese exporters (Sinochem China National 
Chemicals Import & Export Corporation, Yunnan Minmetals & Chemicals 
Import & Export (Group) Corporation, and Shanghai Chemicals Import and 
Export Corporation) which state that each entity did not ship sebacic 
acid to the United States during the POI.
    On December 3, 1993, the four exporters provided a response to the 
Department's publicly available published information deficiency 
questionnaire.
    On December 13, 1993, we received a letter from MOFTEC objecting to 
the November 26, 1993, questionnaires we sent to the provincial and 
municipal governments. On December 17, 1993, we received a response to 
our November 26, 1993, separate rates clarification questionnaire from 
the Guangdong Commission of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade. On 
December 20, 1993, we received a response from the Jiangsu provincial 
government.
    Also, on December 20, respondents requested that, in the event of 
an affirmative determination in this investigation, the Department 
postpone the final determination an additional 60 days from the date of 
publication of the affirmative preliminary determination. See the 
``Postponement of Final Determination'' section of this notice. On 
December 23, 1993, we received a response from the Beijing municipal 
government but we did not receive a response to our supplemental 
Attachment II questionnaire from MOFTEC or from the four responding 
exporters.

Scope of Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are all grades of 
sebacic acid, a dicarboxylic acid with the formula 
(CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but are not limited to CP 
Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA color), Purified Grade 
(1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), and Nylon Grade (500ppm 
maximum ash, 70 maximum APHA color). The principal difference between 
the grades is the quantity of undesirable ash and color. Sebacic acid 
contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of which the predominant 
species is the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as 
a free-flowing powder/flake.
    Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production 
of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles 
and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants, 
polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives, 
lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.
    Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading 
2917.13.00.00, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 1993, through June 30, 1993.

Market-Oriented Industry

    All of the respondents in this investigation have claimed that the 
sebacic acid industry is an MOI. In their November 1, 1993, responses, 
the respondents claim that all of the manufacturers' material and non-
material inputs used to produce sebacic acid were purchased at market-
driven prices during the POI and that none of the factories or the 
factories' suppliers produced any of the inputs for sebacic acid for 
in-plan production. Accordingly, these respondents state that it is 
appropriate for the Department to use the PRC prices for material and 
non-material inputs for valuing the inputs used to produce sebacic 
acid.
    In the Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of China (57 FR 9409, 9411; 
March 18, 1992) (Sulfanilic Acid), the Department set forth the 
following criteria to be used in determining whether an MOI exists in 
an economy which would otherwise be considered non-market:
     For merchandise under investigation, there must be 
virtually no government involvement in setting prices or amounts to be 
produced. For example, state-required production of the merchandise, 
whether for export or domestic consumption in the non-market economy 
country would be an almost insuperable barrier to finding a market-
oriented industry.
     The industry producing the merchandise under investigation 
should be characterized by private or collective ownership. There may 
be state-owned enterprises in the industry but substantial state 
ownership would weigh heavily against finding a market-oriented 
industry.
     Market-determined prices must be paid for all significant 
inputs, whether material or non-material, and for an all but 
insignificant proportion of all the inputs accounting for the total 
value of the merchandise under investigation. For example, an input 
price will not be considered market-determined if the producers of the 
merchandise under investigation pay a state-set price for the input or 
if the input is supplied to the producers at government direction. 
Moreover, if there is any state-required production in the industry 
producing the input, the share of state-required production must be 
insignificant.
    If these conditions are not met, then, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.52, 
the producers of the merchandise under investigation will be treated as 
non-market economy (NME) producers, and the foreign market value will 
be calculated by using prices and costs from a surrogate country, in 
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act.
    On November 9, we issued an MOI deficiency questionnaire to the 
respondents and sent a supplemental MOI questionnaire to MOFTEC. This 
questionnaire contained questions concerning the identity of the entire 
sebacic acid industry, the ownership of all entities which produce 
sebacic acid or supply inputs used to produce sebacic acid, and whether 
any inputs were subject to in-plan production. Since we did not receive 
the responses to our questionnaire on December 23, 1993, we did not 
have sufficient information on the record for our preliminary 
determination to determine whether the sebacic acid industry during the 
POI was an MOI. Therefore, we will address the respondents' MOI claim 
in our final determination.

Separate Rates

    To determine whether an NME exporter is eligible for a separate 
antidumping duty rate, the Department first analyzes ownership. If an 
exporter is owned by the central government, the Department will not 
issue a separate rate for that exporter. Instead, the Department 
assigns to all exporters owned by the central government a single, 
weighted-average margin.
    In the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Compact Ductile Iron Waterworks Fittings and Accessories 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China (58 FR 37908; July 14, 
1993), the Department determined that NME exporters owned by the 
central government are not eligible for antidumping duty rates separate 
from each other because ownership by the central government enables the 
government to manipulate prices, whether or not it takes advantage of 
its opportunity to do so during the POI. Accordingly, entities owned by 
the central government cannot be eligible for rates different or 
separate from each other. To calculate a rate for exporters owned by 
the central government, the Department requires that all potential 
respondents that are owned by the central government reply to the 
antidumping questionnaire. Only complete responses from all the 
entities owned by the central government could enable the Department to 
calculate a weighted-average antidumping margin for the central 
government-controlled entities.
    In the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China 
(58 FR 48833; September 20, 1993) (Lock Washers), the Department 
determined that if an exporter is not owned by the central government 
the Department will consider issuing a separate rate. This is because 
the opportunity for the central government to manipulate the exporter's 
prices is less than its opportunity to control the prices of 
enterprises owned by the central government. However, as in the case of 
exporters owned by the central government, it would still be possible 
for enterprises under common ownership (e.g., provincial governments, 
local governments, collectives, etc.) to have their prices manipulated 
by the common owner. All firms under common ownership which produce or 
sell subject merchandise during the POI must cooperate in the 
investigation to enable the Department to calculate a weighted-average 
dumping margin for them.
    In this investigation, MOFTEC has informed the Department that the 
central government does not own any of the responding exporters of 
sebacic acid. Furthermore, the responding exporters stated for the 
record that they do not share ownership with each other or with any 
other exporter of sebacic acid. Because non-responding exporters of 
sebacic acid are located in the same municipality as Sinochem 
International and in the same province as Guangdong, we requested 
separate rates information from the Beijing municipal government and 
Guangdong provincial government. We also requested similar information 
from the Jiangsu provincial government. Though we have received a 
response from the Guangdong and Jiangsu provincial governments, we 
received a response from the Beijing municipal government too late to 
consider for the preliminary determination. After examining the 
responses submitted by the Guangdong and Jiangsu provincial 
governments, we are concerned that the PRC government agencies have not 
provided information requested by the Department in an NME 
investigation. Because the responding companies have stated on the 
record that they are not owned by the central government or any other 
jurisdiction or entity that owns other exporters of sebacic acid, the 
lack of information in the two local government responses to our 
questionnaire should not control our separate rates decision for the 
preliminary determination. However, we encourage provincial and 
municipal government entities to respond, with the assistance of MOFTEC 
if appropriate, because this issue will be reconsidered before making 
the final separate rates determination in this investigation.
    Given that each of the four responding exporters states that it is 
neither owned by the central government nor owned by another 
jurisdiction or entity that also owns other exporters of the subject 
merchandise, we have determined that these respondents are eligible to 
be considered for separate rates. The criteria the Department relies 
upon to establish whether or not separate rates are appropriate are 
those put forward in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588; May 
6, 1991) (Sparklers). Under the Sparklers criteria, the Department 
issues separate rates where respondents can demonstrate both a de jure 
and de facto absence of central government control over export 
activities.
    In this investigation, each of the four cooperative exporters has 
documented that its business license provides that its ownership is 
distinguished from central-government ownership. In addition, MOFTEC 
has stated that it does not own or control the exporters or producers 
of sebacic acid. This information indicates that there is a de jure 
absence of central government control.
    Each of the four cooperating respondents has asserted and provided 
evidence such as sales contracts that it establishes its own export 
prices and keeps the proceeds of its export sales and that its 
management operates with complete autonomy. This information indicates 
the de facto absence of central government control with respect to 
exports. Consequently, we have determined that these four cooperating 
exporters have met the criteria set forth in Sparklers and we have used 
their information to calculate a separate rate for each of them.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c) of the Act requires the Department to value the 
factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market 
economy countries that are at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the non-market economy country, and that are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has 
determined that India and Pakistan are the most comparable to the PRC 
in terms of overall economic development, based on per capita gross 
national product (GNP), the national distribution of labor, and growth 
rate in per capita GNP. (See memorandum from the Office of Policy to 
David L. Binder, dated September 29, 1993.) The Department has also 
determined that India is a producer of the subject merchandise. Because 
India fulfills both requirements outlined in the statute, India is the 
preferred surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of 
production used in producing the subject merchandise. In cases where we 
were unable to obtain surrogate values from India, we have used values 
obtained in Pakistan. Specifically, we have resorted to Pakistan for 
two surrogate values, where publicly available published values in 
India were either significantly outdated or not obtainable. We have 
obtained and relied upon publicly available published information 
wherever possible.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of sebacic from the PRC to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States 
price (USP) to the foreign market value (FMV), as specified in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this 
notice.

United States Price

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated 
purchasers in the United States prior to importation and because 
exporter's sales price methodology was not otherwise indicated.
    For those exporters that responded to the Department's 
questionnaire, we calculated purchase price based on packed, CIF prices 
to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where 
appropriate, for foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, and foreign brokerage.
    We based the deduction for foreign inland freight on freight rates 
in India, as the respondents reported the use of PRC transportation 
services in incurring this charge. The respondents also reported the 
use of PRC-based providers for ocean freight and marine insurance. We 
based ocean freight on the current tariff rate in the Asia North 
America Eastbound Rate Agreement.
    For foreign brokerage and handling and marine insurance, we used 
publicly summarized versions of these two expenses reported in the 
antidumping duty investigation of sulfur dyes, including sulfur vat 
dyes, from India (see memorandum to the file dated December 27, 1993).

Foreign Market Value

    We calculated FMV based on factors of production reported by the 
factories which produced the subject merchandise for these respondents. 
The factors used to produce sebacic acid include materials, labor, and 
energy. To calculate FMV, the reported factors of production were 
multiplied by the appropriate surrogate values for the different 
inputs. (For a complete analysis of the surrogate values used, see our 
preliminary concurrence memorandum, dated December 27, 1993.)
    In determining which surrogate value to use for valuing each factor 
of production, we selected, where possible, the publicly available 
published value which was: (1) An average non-export value; (2) within 
the POI; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive.
    We used surrogate transportation rates to value inland freight from 
the factories to ports. In the case of material inputs, we also used 
surrogate transportation rates to value the transportation of inputs to 
the factories. In those cases where a respondent failed to provide 
transportation distances, we applied the longest truck rate from our 
surrogate data as best information available (BIA).
    To value castor oil, we used publicly available published 
information from The Times of India. This source provided a non-export 
price during the POI.
    To value caustic soda, sodium chloride, zinc oxide, phenal, and 
glycerine, we used publicly available published information from 
Chemical Business. This source provided a non-export price during the 
POI which did not appear to include Indian excise or provincial sales 
taxes.
    To value sulfuric acid, cresol, and caproyl alcohol, we used 
publicly available published information from Chemical Weekly. This 
source provided a non-export price during the POI which was inclusive 
of taxes. However, because we did not have the necessary information to 
deduct taxes, we did not remove the taxes from these prices.
    To value activated carbon and fatty acid, we used publicly 
available published information from the Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India. In addition, to value macropore resin we used a 
comparable product's price from Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade 
of India. This source was the only one we found which provided publicly 
available published price information for these material inputs. 
Because these prices were prior to the POI, we adjusted the factor 
values to account for inflation between the time period in question and 
the POI using wholesale price indices (WPIs) published in International 
Financial Statistics (IFS) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
    To value steam coal, we used publicly available published 
information from the 1993 OECD IEA Statistics. This was the most 
current publicly available published information we found that provided 
a price for steam coal. Because the price quoted was prior to the POI, 
we adjusted the factor values to account for inflation between the time 
period in question and the POI using WPIs published in IFS by the IMF.
    To value electricity, we used publicly available published 
information from the Monthly Statistical Bulletin published by the 
Pakistani Federal Bureau of Statistics. This source provided an 
electricity rate for industrial use in the POI. We found that the 
published information for Indian electricity rates was either outdated 
or appeared to be non-specific.
    To value water, we used a cable from the U.S. consulate in 
Pakistan. We used this cable because we could not locate a value for 
water in any Indian or Pakistani publication. Because the price 
contained in the cable was for a period prior to the POI, we adjusted 
the factor values to account for inflation between the time period in 
question and the POI using WPIs published in IFS by the IMF.
    To value labor costs, we used the International Labor Office's 1992 
Yearbook of Labor Statistics. To determine the number of hours in an 
Indian workday, we used the Country Reports: Human Rights Practices for 
1990. Because the published labor rate was prior to the POI, we 
adjusted the factor values to account for inflation between the time 
period in question and the POI using the consumer price index published 
in IFS by the IMF.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we calculated percentages based on elements of 
industry group income statements from The Reserve Bank of India 
Bulletin. We did not include an amount for energy in our factory 
overhead calculation.
    To calculate FMV for one ton of sebacic acid, we added each of the 
costs derived above. We also added to FMV, where appropriate, an amount 
for packing labor based on the appropriate Indian wage rate, and an 
amount for packing materials based on Indian prices from the Monthly 
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India. We made no adjustments for 
selling expenses. Finally, we added surrogate freight costs for the 
delivery of inputs and packing materials to the factories producing 
sebacic acid.
    In this investigation, respondents stated that the factories 
produce three valuable by-products (glycerine, fatty acid, and caproyl 
alcohol) in the course of producing sebacic acid. Respondents maintain 
that the Department should deduct the value of these three by-products 
from the cost of manufacture. We disagree with the respondents that the 
products are all by-products, and that the value of each should be 
deducted from the cost of manufacture of sebacic acid. Rather, as 
discussed below, we agree that fatty acid is a by-product but determine 
that glycerine and caproyl alcohol should not be considered by-products 
in this case.
    The three products in question are all yielded during the 
production of sebacic acid and the products are an unavoidable 
consequence of the production of sebacic acid. These products are 
produced from the same raw materials, by the same equipment, during the 
same manufacturing operations, as those used for sebacic acid.
    In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, by-
products are treated differently from other types of products (i.e. 
joint or co-products) for purposes of determining a product's costs. 
The distinction between by-products and these other products is based 
on relative sales value. By-products are identified by their relatively 
insignificant sales value, whereas these other products, regardless how 
they are referred to, generally have significant sales value relative 
to the product under investigation. In this case, we determined whether 
the value of a product was significant or insignificant based on the 
quantity yielded and the value assigned to each product.
    To determine the relative values of all subsidiary products and the 
subject merchandise, we took into account the fact that: (1) The 
factories generally sell the subsidiary products in the domestic 
market; (2) the factories sell sebacic acid in the domestic market; (3) 
the PRC renminbi is a non-convertible currency; and (4) the factories' 
costs and profits have not been considered because we have not yet 
addressed respondents' MOI claim. In accordance with the hierarchy for 
preferred input values as set forth in the Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 
From the People's Republic of China, 57 FR 21058 (May 18, 1992) 
(Comment 4) and the publicly available published information selection 
methodology noted above, we used surrogate values from India for 
sebacic acid, glycerine, caproyl alcohol, and fatty acid to determine 
the relative value of each product based on the production of one 
metric ton of sebacic acid, as well as to determine the total value of 
one metric ton of sebacic acid.
    In this case, we determine that fatty acid is a by-product because 
the overall value of fatty acid is insignificant compared to the 
relative value among all of the ``subsidiary'' products and the subject 
merchandise. As a by-product, we subtracted the sales revenue of fatty 
acid from the production costs of the other products.
    For purposes of the preliminary determination, we determine that 
glycerine and caproyl alcohol are not by-products. The value of 
glycerine for two of the four factories and the value of caproyl 
alcohol for all four factories is significant compared to the relative 
value of all of the products manufactured as a result of or during, the 
process of manufacturing sebacic acid. The reason why we find that 
glycerine should not be considered as a by-product is because we 
conclude that the quantity of production of this product appears 
subject to manipulation by management based on the variation in the 
quantity yield among the four factories.
    Therefore, we allocated the factor inputs, e.g., materials, used to 
produce glycerine and caproyl alcohol, by the relative quantity of 
output of these two products and sebacic acid. We did not allocate the 
amount of labor, energy usage or factory overhead among the products 
because we did not have the information to allow us to make accurate 
adjustments (See concurrence memorandum, dated December 27, 1993, for 
further discussion).

Best Information Available

    The Department's policy, as set forth in Lock Washers, is that all 
potential exporters owned by a given entity must cooperate in our 
investigation in order for the response to be considered complete.
    MOFTEC did not submit a consolidated questionnaire response on 
behalf of all PRC exporters of sebacic acid. As noted above, the list 
of PRC exporters of sebacic acid submitted by MOFTEC contained the 
names of firms which have not responded to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire. Since the Department must receive an adequate 
questionnaire response from each entity to which a separate dumping 
rate can be applied, all non-responding entities must receive a PRC 
country-wide rate. In the absence of adequate questionnaire responses 
from the other exporters of sebacic acid, we have based PRC country-
wide rate on BIA. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that whenever a 
party refuses or is unable to produce information requested in a timely 
manner and in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes an 
investigation, the Department shall use BIA. We have done so in this 
investigation.
    In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology based on the degree of respondents' cooperation. 
According to the Department's two-tiered BIA methodology, when a 
company refuses to provide the information requested in the form 
required, or otherwise significantly impedes the Department's 
investigation, it is appropriate for the Department to assign to that 
company the higher of (a) the highest margin alleged in the petition, 
or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the 
investigation. This methodology for assigning BIA has been upheld by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (See Allied-Signal 
Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see 
also Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 
1993).) Because some PRC exporters refused to answer the Department's 
questionnaire, we find that they have been uncooperative in this 
investigation. As BIA for these exporters, we are assigning the highest 
margin provided in the petition (243.40) as the PRC country-wide rate, 
in accordance with the two-tiered BIA methodology under which the 
Department imposes the most adverse rate upon those respondents who 
refuse to cooperate or otherwise significantly impede the proceeding. 
No adjustments were made to petitioner's calculations.
    No ``All Others'' rate will be established for the PRC. Instead, a 
country-wide rate is applied to all imports of sebacic acid from the 
PRC for those PRC exporters which were unable to demonstrate that they 
were entitled to a separate rate. Because we are assigning a country-
wide rate in this situation, there is no need to assign an ``All 
Others'' case deposit rate for PRC entities.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the 
information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of sebacic 
acid from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or 
posting of a bond equal to the estimated amount by which the FMV 
exceeds the USP as shown below. These suspension of liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows. The PRC 
country-wide rate applies only to PRC companies not specifically listed 
below. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
              Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter                    margin  
                                                             percentage 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinochem International Chemicals Company...................        28.04
Sinochem Jiangsu Import & Export Corporation...............        39.24
Tianjin Chemicals Import & Export Corporation..............        20.01
Guangdong Chemicals Import & Export Corporation............        40.25
PRC country-wide rate......................................      243.40 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry.

Postponement of Final Determination

    As stated above, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), respondents, 
which account for a significant portion of the merchandise covered in 
this proceeding, have requested in writing that, in the event of an 
affirmative determination, the Department postpone the final 
determination an additional 60 days from the publication of the 
preliminary determination. Accordingly, because we find no compelling 
reason to deny the request, we are postponing the date of the final 
determination until not later than 135 days after the date of 
publication of this notice.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than April 8, 1994, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than April 13, 1994. In accordance with 19 
CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in 
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held on April 
15, 1994, at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce, room 3708, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 
hours before the scheduled time.
    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, U.S. Department of Commerce, room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In addition, an executive summary of no more than two pages 
on the major issues to be addressed should be submitted with case 
briefs. Briefs should contain a table of authorities. Citations to the 
Department's determinations and court decisions should include the page 
number where the cited information appears. In preparing the briefs, 
please begin each issue on a separate page. In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the 
briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final 
determination on or about May 23, 1994.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).


    Dated: December 27, 1993.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-160 Filed 1-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P