[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15037-15039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8219]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-501]
Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From The People's
Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads
from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle
paint brushes and brush heads (paint brushes) from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) in response to requests by importers, Great
American Marketing, Inc. and Brenner Associates, Ltd., and by a
domestic interested party, EZ Paintr Corporation (EZ Paintr). This
review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United States during
the period February 1, 1994, through January 31, 1995.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping
duties equal to the difference between the export price and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with each
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4733.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping
duty order on paint brushes from the PRC on February 14, 1986 (51 FR
5580). On February 2, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 6524) a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on paint brushes
from the PRC covering the period February 1, 1994, through January 31,
1995.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), Great American Marketing,
Inc., requested that we conduct an administrative review of Yixing
Sanai Brush Making Co., Ltd. (Yixing), and Eastar B.F. (Thailand)
Company Ltd. (Eastar); Brenner Associates requested that we conduct an
administrative review of Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp. (HACO),
China National Metals & Minerals I/E Corp, Zhenjiang Trading Corp.
(Zhenjiang Trading), and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Light
Industrial Products I/E Corp.; and EZ Paintr requested that we conduct
an administrative review of China National Native Produce and Animal
By-Products Import-Export Corporation, HACO, Zhenjiang Trading, and the
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Light Industrial Products I/E. We
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review on March 15, 1995 (60 FR 13955). The Department
is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751
of the Act.
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of natural bristle
paint brushes and brush heads from the PRC. The merchandise under
review is currently classifiable under item 9603.40.40.40 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
This review covers the period February 1, 1994, through January 31,
1995, and covers six producers/exporters of Chinese paint brushes.
Separate Rates
To establish whether a company operating in a state-controlled
economy is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate,
the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test
established in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6,
1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of
China (59 FR 22585, May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this policy,
exporters in non-market economies (NMEs) are entitled to separate,
company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence
of government control includes: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's
[[Page 15038]]
business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence
of government control with respect to exports is based on four factors:
(1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of
the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2)
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and
sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.
HACO was the only exporter that responded to the Department's
request for information; therefore, HACO was the only firm for which we
made a determination as to whether it should receive a separate rate.
The determination as to whether HACO should receive a separate rate is
made under the policy set forth in Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
The evidence on the record demonstrates that HACO meets the de jure
and three of the four de facto criteria, which are that it sets its own
export prices independently, that it retains proceeds from its sales,
and that it has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements, but that it may not have autonomy in making decisions
regarding the selection of its management. According to the information
on the record, the Hebei Foreign Trade & Economic Cooperation
Department, a provincial government entity, appoints the general
manager of HACO. Consequently, we have preliminarily found that there
is de facto government control with respect to HACO's exports according
to the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
However, because the implication of the provincial government's
role in selection of HACO's management is not clear from the record,
given that HACO meets three of the four de facto criteria, we are
giving HACO an opportunity to clarify its response. We will request
additional information from HACO, and consider such information in
determining whether to assign HACO a separate rate for the final
results of this review. For further discussion of the Department's
preliminary determination that HACO is not entitled to a separate rate,
see Decision Memorandum to the Director, Office of Antidumping
Compliance, dated March 27, 1996: ``Separate rate analysis for Hebei
Animal By-Products I/E Corp. in the administrative review of natural
bristle paint brushes and brush heads from the People's Republic of
China,'' which is on file in the Central Records Unit (room B099 of the
Main Commerce Building).
Facts Available
We preliminarily determine that the use of the facts available is
appropriate for Yixing, Eastar, Zhenjiang Trading, China National
Native Produce and Animal By-Products Import-Export Corporation, and
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Light Industrial Products I/E Corp.
because these firms did not respond to the Department's antidumping
questionnaire. Because necessary information is not available on the
record with regard to sales by these firms, as a result of their
withholding the requested information, we must make our preliminary
determination based on facts otherwise available pursuant to section
776(a) of the Act.
The Department finds that, in not responding to the questionnaire,
these five firms failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their
ability to comply with requests for information from the Department.
We also preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a)
of the Act, that the use of the facts available is appropriate for
HACO. While HACO cooperated with our requests for information, HACO has
not overcome the presumption of government control. Furthermore, there
is another producer/exporter of paint brushes in Hebei province that
did not respond to our request for information. We also sent the
provincial government a questionnaire, but did not receive a response.
As a result, we have determined to use facts available with respect to
sales made by HACO and the other Hebei exporter/producer of paint
brushes.
Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of that
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
Because information from prior proceedings constitutes secondary
information, section 776(c) provides that the Department shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
to be used has probative value.
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review (60 FR 49567), where the Department disregarded
the highest margin in that case as adverse BIA because the margin was
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting
in an unusually high margin). In this case, we have used the highest
rate from any prior segment of the proceeding, 127.07 percent rate.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins
exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yixing Sanai Brush Making 2/1/94-1/31/95............... \1\ 127.07
Co. Ltd.
[[Page 15039]]
Eastar B.F. (Thailand) 2/1/94-1/31/95............... \1\ 127.07
Company Ltd.
Hebei Animal By-Products I/E 2/1/94-1/31/95............... \1\ 127.07
Corp. and another firm
controlled by the
provincial government, the
name of which is
proprietary.
China National Metals & 2/1/94-1/31/95............... \1\ 127.07
Minerals I/E Corp,
Zhenjiang Trading Corp.
Inner Mongolia Autonomous 2/1/94-1/31/95............... \1\ 127.07
Region Light Industrial
Products I/E Corp.
China National Native 2/1/94-1/31/95............... \1\ 127.07
Produce and Animal By-
Products Import-Export
Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This rate does not represent a separate rate determination.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice,
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. The Department will publish a notice of final results of
this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such comments.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of paint brushes from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) for the companies
named above which were not found to have separate rates, as well as for
all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide
rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for any
company found to merit a separate rate for the final results of this
review, the rate will be the company-specific rate for that company
established in the final results of this review; (3) for previously
reviewed non-PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established in the most recent segment of the proceeding; and (4) for
all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of
that exporter.
These deposit rates, 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.
Dated: March 27, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-8219 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P