[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54335-54336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26210]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-804]


Sparklers 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 August 4, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on sparklers from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC) (60 FR 39931). The review was requested for one manufacturer, 
Guangxi Native Produce Import and Export Corporation, Beihai Fireworks 
and Firecrackers Branch (Guangxi), of the subject merchandise and the 
review period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. We received no comments. The final results are 
unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 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 (59 FR 29411). 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 (59 FR 36160). On August 4, 1995 
(60 FR 39931), the Department published in the Federal Register the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on sparklers from the PRC. The Department has now completed 
that 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. 

[[Page 54336]]
Sparklers are currently classifiable 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 
is entitled to a separate rate by reason of both de jure and de facto 
absence of central government control with respect to exports. 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 and, thus, 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 determine that Guangxi is an uncooperative respondent. 
Further, 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.

Final Results of the Review

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
results. We received no comments. The final results are therefore 
unchanged from those presented in the preliminary results, and we 
determine that a margin of 94.54 percent exists for Guangxi for the 
period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative 
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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.

    Dated: October 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-26210 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P