[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 98 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12445]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 23, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-001]

 

Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of 
China. The review covers 15 Chinese producers/exporters and 32 third-
country resellers for the period January 1, 1990, through December 31, 
1990. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we determine the 
country-wide dumping margin for the People's Republic of China to be 
128.94 percent. Since none of the third-country resellers have 
demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate for sales made during this 
period or review, they will receive the same rate as their suppliers in 
the People's Republic of China.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-4474 or 482-3814 respectively.

Background

    On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results (58 FR 69330) of its administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) (49 FR 3898, January 31, 1984). The 
Department has now completed this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 
Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of potassium 
permanganate, an inorganic chemical produced in free-flowing, 
technical, and pharmaceutical grades. During the review period, 
potassium permanganate was classifiable under item 2841.60.0010 of the 
harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) The HTS item number is provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive. The review covers 15 producers/ exporters and 32 third-
country resellers for the period January 1, 1990, through December 31, 
1990.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
results. At the request of the following respondents, Zunyi Chemical 
Factory (Zunyi), Yue Pak Co. Ltd. (Yue Pak), He-Ro Chemicals, Ltd. (He-
Ro), ICD (HK) Ltd, (ICD (HK)) and an interested party, Novachem, Inc. 
(Novahem), we held a public hearing on February 10, 1994. We received 
timely comments from the above-named respondents, the above-named 
interested party, and the petitioner, Carus Chemical Company.

Comment 1

    Methodology: Zunyi and Novachem assert that, in this review, the 
Department should have provided them with an opportunity to respond to 
a separate rates questionnaire specifically based on the test announced 
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China (Sparklers) on May 6, 1991 rather than 
that based on the separate rates criteria set forth in Iron 
Construction Casting from the People's Republic of China; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (Castings) on January 24, 
1991. Zunyi and Novachem assert that in Castings, the Department stated 
``Our determination that the PRC is a state-controlled economy in which 
all entities are presumed to export under the control of the state 
leads us to question the application of multiple rates, absent a clear 
showing of legal, financial and economic independence. Thus, we 
conclude that a single country-wide rate is application for this 
case.'' Zunyi and Novachem contrast that with Sparklers, where the 
Department adopted the following position: ``We have determined that 
exporters in non-market economy countries are entitled to separate, 
company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of 
control by the central government, both in law and in fact, with 
respect to exports. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a 
finding of de jure absence of central control includes: (1) An absence 
of restrictive stipulation associated with an individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; or (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence 
of central government control with respect to exports is based on two 
prerequisites: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices 
independently of the government and other exporters; and (2) whether 
each exporter can keep the proceeds from its sales.''
    Zunyi and Novachem assert that the application in this case of the 
test utilized in Castings is inappropriate for the following reasons. 
First, since questionnaires were not issued until three months after 
the Sparklers decision was rendered, Zunyi and Novachem maintain that 
reliance on an approach in place at time of initiation is 
inappropriate. Second, Zunyi and Novachem state that the Court of 
International Trade (CIT) has directed the Department to apply the 
Sparklers methodology in a remand of Castings, the very case on which 
the Department based its approach in this review. Third, Zunyi and 
Novachem claim that in reviews being conducted during the same time 
period as this one, the Department has utilized the methodology set 
forth in Sparklers. As an example, Zunyi and Novachem point to the 
1988-1989 review of Shop Towels from the People's Republic of China, 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 60,969 
(Nov. 29, 1991), where the Department requested information after the 
preliminary determination to determine whether the respondent qualified 
for a separate rate under the Sparklers criteria. Zunyi and Novachem 
argue that not to issue a new separate rates questionnaire in this 
review would be arbitrary and capricious. Finally, Zunyi and Novachem 
assert that it is within the capacity of the Department to change 
methodologies within reviews and that, in light of the above claims, 
the Department should now issue a questionnaire based on the Sparklers 
test to determine whether PRC respondents qualify for a separate rate.
    Petitioner points out that the separate rates test set forth in 
Sparklers does not, in fact, constitute a new methodology, but is 
merely a continuation and elaboration of that set forth in Castings. 
Furthermore, petitioner asserts that respondents were on notice 
regarding what they were required to show to obtain a separate rate 
under Castings, since that decision was cited in the petitioner's 
request for review and because the Department requested from them the 
information needed to make a separate rate decision. Petitioner also 
notes that the remand of the Department's determination in Castings was 
based on the fact that because the Castings test was not enunciated 
until the final results of that review, respondents had not been given 
an opportunity to attempt to demonstrate their entitlement to a 
separate rate, even under the Castings criteria (``a clear showing of 
legal, financial and economic independence''). Finally, petitioner 
states that the Department has broad discretion in choosing 
methodologies, and that the choice of methodology may vary on a case-
by-case basis.
    DOC Position: The Department agrees with the petitioner. The 
Castings test and the methodology utilized in Sparklers and most 
recently in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (Silicon Carbide) 
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) require that producers and exporters in the 
PRC receive a single rate unless it is clearly demonstrated that a 
particular entity is not subject to governmental control and therefore 
merits its own rate. The test employed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide 
built upon that used in Castings by outlining specific criteria that we 
would consider in determining whether an entity had shown such 
autonomy. In this case, Zunyi did not demonstrate adequately that it 
was free of governmental control under any of these tests.
    Indeed, information on the record indicates that Zunyi was 
controlled by municipal authorities. For example, during this period of 
review, Zunyi was subject to guidance from municipal authorities 
regarding output in terms of value and production, and was not allowed 
to enter into contracts with foreign entities or to export directly. 
(See DOC Position to Comment 2.)
    Furthermore, the Department's use of a questionnaire based on the 
Castings test has not prejudiced respondents' position. The respondents 
were on notice with respect to their burden of showing their 
independence from governmental control if they desired to be given a 
separate rate. The supplemental questionnaire sent to Zunyi and other 
PRC entities states: ``[I]f you feel that your client is entitled to a 
separate rate, submit for the record all documentation that supports 
your client's claim of legal, financial, and economic independence.'' 
Furthermore, respondents were specifically requested to provide 
information regarding their corporate organization, relationships with 
other businesses, state-ownership, decision making processes, and 
corporate accounting information. In addition, Part Two of Appendix V 
of the questionnaire, the section directed specifically to 
manufacturers, requested information on production for export, 
relationships with exporters and how pricing decisions were made with 
them, pricing and production methods in general, government policy 
directives affecting pricing and production quantity decisions, and 
relevant regulatory systems. Thus, respondents have already been 
afforded an opportunity to provide whatever information they feel may 
support their request for separate rates.
    The fact that the Department's decision in Castings was remanded 
does not invalidate the fundamental approach outlined therein. In that 
case, the CIT found that the Department had not made clear until its 
final determination that the respondents had to demonstrate that they 
were not subject to governmental control to receive a separate rate. 
The CIT's decision merely requires that respondents be put on notice 
that they have the burden of demonstrating their independence if they 
wish to receive a separate rate. Respondents in this review were made 
aware of that burden, but were unable to establish that they were in 
fact entitled to any separate rate.
    Finally, the Department's decision to issue a Sparklers 
questionnaire to a respondent in the Shop Towels case does not require 
that it do so in this case. In Shop Towels, the Department had found 
the sole responding PRC firm, an import/export firm, to be independent 
of governmental control in a previous review and sought only to 
ascertain whether that determination remained valid. The record in this 
review establishes that Zunyi did not meet the Sparklers standard for 
independence. Moreover, as already noted, respondents in the present 
case were provided several opportunities to submit evidence 
demonstrating lack of governmental control. Under these circumstances, 
we have determined that issuing a Sparklers questionnaire in this 
review was not necessary.

Comment 2

    Separate Rates for PRC Producers: Zuny and Novachem state that the 
preliminary results do not fairly represent the information already 
submitted by Zunyi on the lack of state control and that Zunyi merits a 
separate rate. They assert that state ownership and state control are 
two different things. Additionally, Zunyi notes that its response 
included the following information which supported its claim that it 
functions autonomously. First, Zunyi is totally separate from the 
import-export corporations with which it deals; second, the import-
export corporations sign a purchase contract with Zunyi according to a 
price agreed upon in a calculation made in U.S. dollars; third, Zunyi's 
selling prices are decided by the factory according to cost and market; 
fourth Zunyi implemented a contract system in 1987; and fifth, Zunyi is 
autonomous in terms of management and accounting, and assumes sole 
responsibility in paying taxes and for profits and losses. Based on 
these assertions, Zunyi and Novachem claim that they have submitted 
enough information to merit a separate rate for Zunyi, alleging that 
the Department did not ask for further information.
    Petitioner argues that the evidence on the record indicates that 
Zunyi is not qualified to receive a separate rate, and that the 
Department should make an adverse assumption on this issue due to 
Zunyi's failure to provide certain required evidence to support its 
claim of independence.
    DOC Position: We agree with petitioner. Based on the totality of 
information on the record, we have determined that Zunyi is subject to 
government control. First Zunyi is under the control of the Economic 
Commission of Zunyi City (the Commission), and the Commission gave 
``guiding instructions'' as to the ``planning of production in terms of 
value and quantity.'' Second, as a ``Zhongguo Faren'', Zunyi was not 
allowed by Chinese law to engage in contractual relations with foreign 
entities, nor was it allowed to export directly. Instead, it was 
required to export through PRC import/export companies. This point was 
specifically mentioned in the Sparklers test as a factor weighing 
against a finding of independence. Furthermore, Zunyi did not provide 
copies of its financial statements despite our two requests for these, 
nor did it provide the detailed information we requested regarding its 
ownership. Without this critical evidence, the Department is unable to 
affirm that Zunyi is entitled to separate rate status, despite the 
assertions Zunyi makes in its case brief.
    With respect to Zunyi and Novachem's claim that the Department 
should have asked for any information that was lacking, the Department 
requested on more than one occasion critical information (e.g., Zunyi's 
financial statements and specific information regarding ownership), and 
that information was not provided by Zunyi. In addition, as noted 
above, the information on the record is sufficient for the Department 
to determine that Zunyi did not possess the requisite independence to 
merit a separate rate.

Comment 3

    Market Oriented Industry: Zunyi and Novachem assert that Zunyi 
operated under market conditions during the period of review and that 
the Department should utilize local factor prices to determine foreign 
market value as outlined in the methodology announced in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts 
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 175 (September 10, 1991). At 
the minimum, they argue, the Department should base fair market value 
on a surrogate economy other than Thailand.
    DOC Position: Since the margin for this period is based on best 
information available, any questions as to which methodology would have 
been used have we been able to calculate a margin are moot. 
Furthermore, the failure of the PRC Embassy in the United States to 
respond to our inquiry regarding industry and market conditions in the 
PRC would, in any case, preclude us from determining that market 
conditions existed in the PRC for this industry.

Comment 4

    Separate Rates Under the Reseller Provision: Zunyi and Novachem 
urge the Department to reconsider the decision in its preliminary 
results of review that the Hong Kong resellers do not qualify for 
separate rates under the intermediate country reseller provisions. 
Section 353.47 of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.47) calls 
for a separate rate to be calculated for an intermediate country 
reseller if all of the following criteria are met:
    (1) A reseller in an intermediate country purchases the merchandise 
from the producer,
    (2) The producer does not know (at the time of the sale) the 
country to which the reseller intends to export the merchandise,
    (3) The merchandise enters the commerce of the intermediate country 
but is not substantially transformed in that country, and
    (4) The merchandise is subsequently exported to the United States.
    Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD(HK) argue that Hong Kong should be treated 
as the country from which the subject merchandise was exported and they 
should be given separate rates under this provision, which allows for 
qualifying intermediate country resellers to be assigned a margin based 
on a comparison between their above cost-of-production sales to the 
United States and a fair market value based on the reseller's sales in 
its home country or a third country, rather than the margin(s) of its 
supplier(s). With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, Yue Pak, 
He-Ro and ICD (HK) claim that since they filed import/export 
declarations and paid fees applicable only to imports and exports, the 
merchandise entered the commerce of Hong Kong, rather than merely being 
transshipped through Hong Kong. Furthermore, these parties note that it 
is uncontested that the merchandise was not transformed between its 
manufacture in the PRC and its shipment to the United States.
    In refuting arguments raised by petitioner, these resellers argue 
that (1) the length of time that merchandise remains in a third country 
should not be a basis for determining intermediate country reseller 
status, (2) the amount paid in import/export fees should not be a 
criterion, (3) the term ``transshipment'' as used by Yue Pak, He-Ro, 
and ICD (HK) in the questionnaire responses does not refer to the 
statutory meaning of the term, and (4) the export provisions of the 
Tariff Act cited by petitioner are not relevant to the construction of 
the reseller provision.
    Yue Pak, He-Ro and ICD (HK) also argue that the Department's 
comparison of their sales and order-filling process to the practices 
described in the final determination in Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur 
Vat Dyes, From the People's Republic of China (Sulfur Dyes), 58 FR 7537 
(February 8, 1993), is not appropriate because, ``unlike respondents 
herein, respondents in Sulfur Dyes had separate procedures for handling 
merchandise which was destined to the United States as opposed to 
merchandise that was sold in Hong Kong.''
    With respect to the knowledge requirement, Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD 
(HK) state that the producers from whom they purchased the subject 
merchandise had no knowledge of the ultimate destination of this 
merchandise. Producer Zunyi, on the other hand, states that it knew, at 
the time of sale, the destination of the potassium permanganate it sold 
during the period of review.
    Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) also claim that, since in the PRC only 
import and export corporations had the legal capacity to enter into 
``foreign economic contracts'' during the period of review, purchasing 
from these entities rather than from the producer/manufacturer should 
fulfill this requirement. Zunyi and Novachem also make this point. 
Finally, these parties note that export of the merchandise to the 
United States is not at issue.
    Petitioner argues that no reseller in this case meets the 
qualifications for a rate distinct from its producer(s) under 19 CFR 
353.47. Petitioner also notes that since the intermediate country 
reseller provision constitutes an exception to the general rule that a 
reseller's rate is the rate of its supplier(s), the responding 
resellers have the burden to showing that each prong of the testy is 
fully met.
    With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, petitioners assert 
that the merchandise was merely transshipped through Hong Kong and did 
not enter commerce there, noting that the questionnaire responses of 
Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) describe circumstances involved in the 
sales of subject merchandise through the resellers which indicate that 
the merchandise was never intended to enter the commerce of Hong Kong. 
Petitioner also cites the appraisement provisions of the tariff laws to 
support its proposition that to ``enter commerce'' is a term of art 
that involves merchandise which (1) is intended to be diverted into the 
commerce of a third country and was in fact diverted; (2) is not 
passing through a third country enroute to a purchaser in a different 
country; (3) is not merely passing through a third country; (4) is 
intended for consumption in the third country; and (5) is sold or 
offered for sale in the third country. In petitioner's view, 
warehousing, and/or repackaging, and/or relabelling in a third country 
is not considered evidence that the merchandise has entered the 
commerce of a country, unless there are other supporting factors. In 
addition, petitioner contends that a decision as to whether merchandise 
``enters the commerce'' of a country must include consideration of 
whether or not the producer country receives any undue benefit by 
shipping through a third country.
    With respect to the ``knowledge'' prong, petitioner asserts that 
resellers have not demonstrated that the producers did not know the 
merchandise was destined for the United States. As evidence to the 
contrary, they note that U.S.-specific labels were affixed to the 
merchandise in the PRC. Furthermore, petitioners note that Zunyi and 
Sinochem, the only PRC parties that responded in this review, both 
stated in their questionnaire responses that they were aware that some 
of their sales of potassium permanganate were destined for the United 
States.
    Petitioner also points to the fact that the Hong Kong resellers did 
not purchase directly from the manufacturer or producer. As mentioned 
above, export of the merchandise to the United States is not at issue.
    Finally, petitioner urges that even if a reseller in this case had 
been able to demonstrate that it qualified for a separate rate under 
the intermediate country reseller provision, Hong Kong or third country 
sales should not be used as the basis of foreign market value for any 
reseller, since there is reason to believe that sales through Hong Kong 
are made at below the cost of production.
    DOC Position: We agree with petitioner that none of the resellers 
have met the requirements for separate rates in this review.
    With respect to the ``enters commerce'' prong, we have considered 
the totality of the circumstances in determining whether it has been 
shown that this merchandise entered the commerce of Hong Kong before 
being shipped to the United States. No isolated factor, such as whether 
import/export fees or duties were paid or whether the merchandise was 
warehoused in Hong Kong was treated as controlling. Instead, we have 
evaluated all factors which may be relevant.
    In this case, there are compelling indications that the merchandise 
was never intended to be offered for sale in Hong Kong, and that it 
entered the territory of Hong Kong for the sole purpose of being 
shipped from there to the United States. The questionnaire responses of 
Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) clearly and explicitly indicate the 
following order pattern. First, a U.S. customer would place an order 
with a Hong Kong reseller for a certain quantity of potassium 
permanganate. Then the Hong Kong reseller would place an order for the 
exact same quantity with the PRC import/export company. The import/
export company would then place an order with the manufacturer for the 
same exact quantity which was ultimately shipped through Hong Kong to 
the United States. Thus, the record shows that throughout the entire 
procedure, the merchandise was always intended only for the U.S. 
market.
    The treatment of the merchandise in Hong Kong, while not 
controlling, is also consistent with the fact that these shipments did 
not enter the commerce of Hong Kong. For example, Hong Kong law exempts 
from import/export declarations (and associated fees) shipments 
consigned under ``through bills of lading'' only. The fact that the 
Hong Kong resellers paid import/export fees suggests only that the 
merchandise was not shipped under a ``through bill of lading''. In 
addition, the fact that the Hong Kong resellers performed ``various 
tasks'' in Hong Kong in relation to the merchandise in and of itself is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the merchandise entered the commerce 
Hong Kong.
    With respect to the ``knowledge'' prong of the test, we note that 
labelling placed on the merchandise in the PRC included references to 
U.S. Department of Transportation specifications, Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration requirements, and even a U.S. ``800'' 
telephone number for ``Chemtrec''. Many buyers throughout the world 
rely on U.S. standards regardless of origin or destination for a wide 
variety of products, and reference to a given country's specifications 
in labelling does not necessarily imply that the product is destined 
for sale in that country. Thus, the labelling in this case is not 
considered conclusive evidence of knowledge of the product's ultimate 
destination. However, the existence of an ``800'' number carries 
somewhat greater weight and no explanation has been offered for the 
inclusion of the number on the label. In fact, both Zunyi and Sinochem 
have stated in their questionnaire responses that they were aware at 
the time of sale that the merchandise was destined for the United 
States. After considering the totality of the evidence on the record 
with regard to the knowledge prong, including the ordering procedure 
discussed above in connection with the ``enter commerce'' prong, we 
determine that the evidence is consistent with knowledge by the 
producers that the merchandise would be sold to the United States, and 
that the resellers have failed to sustain their burden of proof with 
respect to this prong.
    Because no reseller has shown that its suppliers were unaware that 
their merchandise was destined for the United States or that the 
shipments of potassium permanganate entered the commerce of Hong Kong, 
we need not reach other aspects of the reseller test. Furthermore, 
since no reseller has shown that it is entitled to a rate other than 
that of its supplier(s), we need not reach the question of whether the 
resellers were selling below the cost of production. Therefore, our 
preliminary determination that the rate for all resellers for this 
review should be that of their suppliers remains unchanged.

Comment 5

    Yue Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) state that because they were 
cooperative respondents in this review, they should not be ``assigned'' 
the high best information available (BIA) margin from the 1989 review.
    DOC Position: These resellers have not ``been assigned'' a margin 
as individual firms. Resellers have no inherent right to a separately 
calculated rate, regardless of how cooperative they may be. For the 
reasons stated above, the circumstances in which the transactions 
occurred during this period do not allow the Department to calculate 
separate rates for these sales. Thus, we have not assigned individual 
rates to the resellers, and all sales for this review period will be 
assessed a duty based on the margin of the procedures.

Comment 6

    Alternatively, Yue-Pak, He-Ro, and ICD (HK) argue that the 
methodology used to determine the dumping margin in the 1989 review was 
flawed, and that therefore the margin determined in that review should 
not be applied as BIA for the PRC manufacturers in this review. They 
also claim that in selecting a BIA margin, the Department must consider 
the most recent information available, and that any data on which BIA 
is based is rebuttable. In contesting the use of the 1989 figure, these 
resellers claim that the use of Thailand as a surrogate and the use of 
petitioner's own cost data were inappropriate in the 1989 review, and 
that costs were improperly calculated in that review.
    DOC Position: In selecting a BIA margin for the PRC potassium 
permanganate industry, we followed our usual practice of assigning an 
uncooperative respondent the higher of the highest margin determined 
for any firm in any previous review, or the original investigation, or 
the highest rate for a responding company in the current review. See 56 
FR 393. The Department's two-tier BIA methodology was upheld by the 
Court of Appeals in Allied Signal Aerospace Co., et al. v. United 
States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, we used the 
highest margin from the immediately preceding review, the 1989 review. 
The CIT has specifically affirmed, in Novachem, Inc. v. United States, 
Slip Op. 92-149 (CIT, August 28, 1992), that the Department acted 
reasonably in utilizing Thai factor data and petitioner's data in 
determining that rate. Even if the use of Thailand as a surrogate had 
not already been upheld by the CIT, however, the use of a margin from 
an earlier review does not permit a rearguing of the merits of a rate 
in a previous review for which the Department has issued final results 
of review. The appropriate time for challenging the merits of the 1989 
review has passed. Thus, criticism of our use of the 1989 BIA margin is 
unfounded.

Comment 7

    Zunyi and the importer Novachem state that Zunyi was responsive in 
this review, and that the Department should therefore not apply to it 
the same BIA rate that it applied to non-responsive PRC firms.
    The petitioner states that the Department properly applied the 
highest rate from the 1989 review as BIA for the PRC firms, noting that 
this determination was proper due to the presumption of state control 
in a non-market economy and the fact that there was no clear showing in 
this review that any of the PRC manufacturers of subject merchandise 
are independent from the state legally, financially, or economically.
    DOC Response: We agree with the petitioner. For the reasons 
discussed in response to Comment 2, Zunyi failed to show that it was 
sufficiently independent to merit a separate rate for this review. 
Indeed, the record contains sufficient information to determine that 
separate status would be inappropriate. Thus, Zunyi must be considered 
part of the country-wide potassium permanganate industry for the 
purposes of this review. Since the government of the PRC and the 
industry as a whole did not adequately respond to our questionnaires 
(most firms did not respond at all), we have followed our usual 
practice in assigning, as BIA for uncooperative respondents, a country-
wide margin (see our response to Comment 6). When a country-wide margin 
is assigned, the degree of cooperativeness assessed must be that of the 
industry as a whole. To assign a country-wide margin based on the 
response of a single firm could mask dumping by other non-responsive 
firms within the industry. Therefore, it is not appropriate to evaluate 
the extent of Zunyi's cooperation.

Final Results of Review

    Upon review of comments submitted, the Department has determined 
that the margin for all PRC manufacturers/producers/exporters of 
potassium permanganate for the period January 1, 1990 through December 
31, 1990, is 128.94 percent. The margin for all third country exporters 
of potassium permanganate from the PRC for the period January 1, 1990 
through December 31, 1990 shall also be 128.94 percent, the rate of 
their suppliers.
    The Customs Service shall assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions concerning all respondents directly to the U.S. Customs 
Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the PRC 
country-wide firms will be 128.94 percent, and (2) because no non-PRC 
exporter has established on the record, for this administrative review, 
that it qualifies as an intermediate country reseller under the terms 
of the statute, the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise. Specifically, that rate will be the PRC country-wide 
rate of 128.94 percent we have established in this administrative 
review.
    Because any PRC firm must affirmatively show that it is entitled to 
a separate rate before such a rate can be given and any intermediate 
country reseller must affirmatively show that it is entitled to such 
status under the intermediate country reseller provision of the 
regulations (19 CFR 353.47), any new shippers will also be subject to 
the PRC country-wide deposit rate until they request review and 
demonstrate an entitlement to an exception. Therefore, there is no need 
for an ``all others'' cash deposit rate for intermediate country 
resellers. Furthermore, no ``all others'' rate will be established for 
the PRC. Because a country-wide rate is applied to all imports of 
potassium permanganate from the PRC, there is no need for an ``all 
others'' cash deposit rate for PRC entities.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tarriff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: May 11, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-12445 Filed 5-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M