[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57389-57391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28557]


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

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.

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 domestic interested 
parties, the Paint Applicator Division of the American Brush 
Manufacturers Association (PADABMA) and EZ Paintr Corporation (EZ 
Paintr). This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United 
States during the period February 1, 1995, through January 31, 1996.
    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 on appropriate entries.
    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: November 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington D.C. 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 9, 1996, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (61 FR 4956) 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, 1995, through January 31, 
1996.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), PADABMA requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of Yixing Sanai Brush 
Making Co., Ltd. (Yixing); Eastar B.F. (Thailand) Company Ltd. 
(Eastar); Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp. (HACO); China National 
Metals & Minerals I/E Corp, Zhenjiang Trading Corp. (Zhenjiang 
Trading); China National Native Product and Animal By-Product Import 
and Export Corporation (China National); and Inner Mongolia Autonomous 
Region Light Industrial Products I/E Corp. EZ Paintr requested that we 
conduct an administrative review of HACO. We published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on March 19, 
1996 (61 FR 11185). 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, 1995, through January 31, 
1996.

Separate Rates

    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting 
entity under the test established 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), as amplified in 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-economy (NME) 
countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they 
can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) 
and in fact (de facto), 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 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 criteria: (1) Whether the export prices are 
set by or subject to 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 and 
financing of losses; (3) whether each exporter has autonomy in making 
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts. See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
    In our final results of review of this order for the 1994-1995 
review period, the Department determined that HACO warranted a company-
specific dumping margin according to the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads 
From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 52917 (October 9, 1996). 
Because there is no new evidence on the record to warrant 
reconsideration of that issue, we preliminarily determine that HACO 
continues to be entitled to a separate rate.
    Because 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. did not 
respond to our separate rates questionnaire, we preliminarily determine 
that they do not qualify for separate rates.

Non-Shipper

    HACO stated that it did not have shipments during the period of 
review, and we confirmed this with the United States Customs Service. 
Therefore, we

[[Page 57390]]

are treating HACO as a non-shipper for this review. HACO will retain 
its rate from the last administrative review.

Facts Available

    We preliminarily determine that the use of the facts available is 
appropriate for Yixing, Eastar, Zhenjiang Trading, China National, 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. In addition, 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.
    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) of the Act 
authorizes the Department to use an inference adverse to the interests 
of that respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) of 
the Act 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) of the Act 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 best information available 
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic 
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). The Department 
has preliminarily determined that no such circumstances exist with 
respect to the selected margin, the highest rate from any prior segment 
of the proceeding, 351.92 percent.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
          Manufacturer/exporter              Time period      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei Animal By-Products I/E Corp.......     2/1/95-1/31/96   \1\ 351.92
PRC-wide rate...........................     2/1/95-1/31/96      351.92 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant 
  segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.            

    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.


[[Page 57391]]


    Dated: October 30, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-28557 Filed 11-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P