[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39931-39933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19260]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-804]


Sparklers From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, the Elkton 
Sparkler Company and the Diamond Sparkler Company, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on sparklers from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC). The review was requested for one manufacturer, Guangxi Native 
Produce Import and Export Corporation, Beihai Fireworks and 
Firecrackers Branch (Guangxi). The review covers the period June 1, 
1993 through May 31, 1994.
    As a result of this review, we have preliminarily determined to 
assess an antidumping duty of 93.54 percent on the merchandise subject 
to the review. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results of the review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blaskovich or Zev Primor, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
5831/4114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 18, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order on sparklers from the PRC (56 FR 27946). On 
June 7, 1994, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register 
notifying interested parties of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of sparklers from the PRC (58 FR 31941). On June 
23, 1994, the petitioners requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(a), that we conduct an administrative review of exports to the 
United States by Guangxi, for the period June 1, 1993 through May 31, 
1994. We published a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty 
administrative review on July 15, 1994 (58 FR 39007).
    The initiation notice indicated that the review would cover Guangxi 
and would cover conditionally all other exporters of this merchandise. 
The Department is now conducting a review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this administrative review are sparklers 
from the PRC. Sparklers are fireworks, each comprising a cut-to-length 
wire, one end of which is coated with a chemical mix that emits bright 
sparks while burning. Sparklers are currently classifiable 

[[Page 39932]]
under the Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) subheading 3604.10.00. The HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of this 
proceeding.

Best Information Available

    On July 20, 1994, we mailed Guangxi a questionnaire explaining the 
review procedures. In addition, a short questionnaire was sent to 
Guangxi, the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region People's Government, the 
Embassy of the People's Republic of China, the Guangxi Foreign Economic 
Relations and Trade Commission and the Guangxi People's Government-
Beijing Office. This questionnaire sought to ascertain whether Guangxi 
shall be entitled to a separate rate by demonstrating both de jure and 
de facto absence of central government control with respect to exports.
    In addition, the questionnaire states:

[b]ecause we consider the PRC to be a non-market economy for the 
purposes of this review, we will presume that each company that 
exported the subject merchandise during the period of review (POR) 
is owned or controlled by the PRC government until evidence is 
placed on the record that demonstrates otherwise. Absent evidence to 
the contrary, we will consider a single antidumping duty rate to be 
appropriate for all exporters. However, if a company can demonstrate 
an absence of central government control with respect to pricing 
exports, both in law and in fact, it will be entitled to a rate 
separate from the rate for other PRC firms.

    The questionnaires, which covered exports to the United States for 
the period of review (POR), were due on August 23, 1994. We did not 
receive a response from any party by the due date.
    Furthermore, we had previously asked Skypak International Express 
(TNT) to trace the mailing and verify Guangxi's receipt of the 
document. On August 3, 1994, TNT's delivery office in Hong Kong 
confirmed that the questionnaire was accepted by a representative of 
Guangxi on August 2, 1994. Because we received no response and have not 
been contacted by Guangxi or any other respondent, we preliminarily 
determine that Guangxi is no longer entitled to a separate rate, as 
absence of central government control with regard to exports was not 
demonstrated. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, 
we are using the best information available (BIA) as the basis for 
determining a dumping margin for all entries into the United States of 
the subject merchandise during the POR.
    In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology whereby the Department normally assigns lower 
margins to those respondents who cooperate in a review, and margins 
based on more adverse assumptions for those respondents who do not 
cooperate in a review.
    In accordance with our BIA methodology for uncooperative 
respondents, we assign as BIA the higher of: (1) the highest of the 
rates found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in 
the same country of origin in the less than fair value (LTFV) 
investigation or prior administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate 
found in this review for any firm for the same class or kind of 
merchandise in the same country of origin (see Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review: Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France; et. al. (57 FR 
28379, June 24, 1992)).
    This methodology has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Federal Circuit (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. the United 
States, 996 F.2nd 1185 (CAFC 1993); see also Krupp Stahl Ag. et. al. v. 
the United States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). Given that Guangxi did 
not respond to the Department's questionnaires, we find that Guangxi 
has not cooperated in this review.
    In accordance with our methodology we have used as BIA the highest 
rate established in the remand of the LTFV final determination (58 FR 
53708, July 29, 1993), the PRC country-wide rate of 93.54 percent.
Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margin to be the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
           Manufacturer/exporter               Time period     (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC country-wide rate.....................    6/1/93-5/31/94       93.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 
5 days of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 
10 days of publication. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited 
to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later 
than 37 days after the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first 
workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final 
results of this administrative review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs or comments.
    Upon completion of this review, the Department shall determine, and 
the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of sparklers from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for 
Guangxi will be the PRC country-wide rate as stated above; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies that received separate 
rates not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC country-wide 
rate of 93.54 percent, the rate established on remand of the LTFV final 
determination; and (4) the cash deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter 
will be the rate established for that firm; if a non-PRC exporter does 
not have its own separate rate, the deposit rate for that firm's 
shipments will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that 
exporter. In all cases, the rate applicable to a firm normally should 
change only as a result of a review of that firm, except in instances 
of change of ownership.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.


[[Page 39933]]

    Dated July 28, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-19260 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P