[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 250 (Friday, December 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68232-68237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-847]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Persulfates From the 
People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Darzenta, Barbara Wojcik-
Betancourt, or Howard Smith, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-6320, (202) 482-0629, or (202) 482-5193, respectively.

The 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 Rounds 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).

Preliminary Determination

    We determine preliminarily that persulfates from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 
733 of the Act. The estimated margins are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation (61 FR 40817, August 6, 
1996), the following events have occurred:
    On August 1, 1996, the Department sent a survey to the PRC's 
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) requesting 
the identification of producers and exporters, information on 
production and sales of persulfates exported to the United States, and 
identification of the appropriate Chinese Chamber of Commerce. We did 
not receive a response to this request from MOFTEC.
    On August 26, 1996, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination 
in this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-749). The ITC found that 
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States 
is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of 
persulfates.
    The Department issued an antidumping questionnaire 1 to MOFTEC 
on August 27, 1996, with instructions to forward the document to all 
PRC producers/exporters of persulfates and to inform these companies 
that they must respond by the due dates. We also sent courtesy copies 
of the antidumping duty questionnaire to the Chinese Chamber of 
Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters 
Association and to 18 companies whose names and complete addresses had 
been identified in the petition. Moreover, on September 5, 1996, we 
served the questionnaire, via MOFTEC, on two additional companies not 
listed in the petition (i.e., Guangdong Petroleum Chemical Import & 
Export Trade Corporation (``Guangdong Petroleum'') and Shanghai Ai Jian 
Import & Export Corporation (``AJ'')) which we learned were potential 
manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. In addition, 
on the same date, we sent copies of the questionnaire directly to both 
of these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The questionnaire is divided into four sections. Section A 
requests general information concerning a company's corporate 
structure and business practices, the merchandise under 
investigation that it sells, and the sales of the merchandise in all 
of its markets. Sections B and C request home market sales listings 
and U.S. sales listings, respectively (section B does not normally 
apply in antidumping proceedings involving the PRC). Section D 
requests information on the factors of production of the subject 
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 17, 1996, the Department requested that interested 
parties provide published information (PI) for valuing the factors of 
production and for surrogate country selection. We received comments 
from interested parties in October 1996.
    In September and October 1996, four PRC companies and one U.S. 
company submitted responses to section A and/or sections C and D of the 
questionnaire. The identities of these companies are: (1) Sinochem 
Jiangsu Wuxi Import & Export Co. (``Wuxi''), a Chinese exporter of 
subject merchandise; (2) Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Co., 
(``AJ''), a Chinese exporter of subject merchandise; (3) Ai Jian 
Reagent Works (``AJ Works''), Wuxi's and AJ's supplier factory; (4) ICC 
Chemical Corporation (``ICC''), a U.S. importer and reseller of subject 
merchandise which is a privately-owned U.S. company; and (5) Guangzhou 
City Zhujian Electrochemical Factory (``Zhujian''), ICC's Chinese 
supplier factory.
    Also in October 1996, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the 
companies noted above. We received responses to these questionnaires 
during October and November 1996.
    In its questionnaire responses, Zhujian identified Guangdong 
Petroleum as its official exporter in China. Yet, ICC, the U.S. 
importer of Zhujian produced persulfates,

[[Page 68233]]

responded to Section C of the Department's antidumping questionnaire. 
In light of these facts, we concluded that clarification was required 
as to whether Guangdong Petroleum or ICC was the appropriate respondent 
for U.S. sales reporting purposes. Therefore, on November 4, 1996, we 
requested that Zhujian provide information on its U.S. sales via 
Guangdong Petroleum. Insofar as Guangdong Petroleum had failed to 
respond to our original questionnaire sent to it on September 5, 1996, 
we did not issue our request for additional information to Guangdong 
Petroleum. Nevertheless, Guangdong Petroleum, rather than Zhujian, 
responded to this request on November 25, 1996, by submitting a 
response to Section C of our questionnaire.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Guangdong Petroleum never responded to the Department's 
Section A questionnaire which was issued to it on September 5, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for the companies identified above, none of the other 
companies which were served with a questionnaire responded.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    In November and December 1996, all participating exporters 
requested that, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, in the 
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until 
not later than 135 days after the publication of the affirmative 
preliminary determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with 
19 CFR 353.20(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is 
affirmative, (2) these respondents account for all of the exports of 
the companies that responded to the questionnaire, and (3) we are not 
aware of the existence of any compelling reasons for denying the 
request, we are granting respondents' requests and are postponing the 
final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will 
be extended accordingly.

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are persulfates, 
including ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical 
formulae for these persulfates are, respectively, 
(NH4)2S2O8, K2S2O8, and 
Na2S2O8. Ammonium and potassium persulfates are 
currently classified under subheading 2833.40.60 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Sodium persulfate is 
classified under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period of this investigation (POI) comprises each exporter's 
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the petition 
(i.e., January through June 1996).

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy country 
(NME) in all past antidumping investigations (see, e.g., 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) and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22545 (May 
8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol)). Neither respondents nor petitioner has 
challenged such treatment. Therefore, in accordance with section 
771(18)(C) of the Act, we will continue to treat the PRC as an NME in 
this investigation.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base normal value (NV) on the NME 
producers' factors of production, valued, to the extent possible, in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed 
under the NV section below.

Surrogate Country

    The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, 
Egypt and Indonesia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
overall economic development (see Memorandum from David Mueller to 
Louis Apple, dated September 12, 1996).
    According to the available information on the record, we have 
determined that India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices to 
value the PRC producers' factors of production, when available and 
where appropriate. We have obtained and relied upon PI wherever 
possible.

Separate Rates

    Each of the participating respondent exporters, except for 
Guangdong Petroleum which did not respond to the Department's section A 
questionnaire, has requested a separate, company-specific rate. The 
claimed ownership structure of the respondents is as follows: (1) Wuxi 
is owned by all the people; (2) AJ is a publicly-held company.
    As stated in Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol, ownership of a 
company by all the people does not require the application of a single 
rate. Accordingly, each of the respondents which reports that it is 
owned by all the people or publicly held is eligible for consideration 
for a separate rate.
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of 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) and 
amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the 
Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if 
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    Except for Guangdong Petroleum which has failed to respond to the 
Department's section A questionnaire, each respondent exporter has 
placed on the administrative record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control. These documents include laws, 
regulations and provisions enacted by the central government of the 
PRC, describing the deregulation of Chinese enterprises as well as the 
deregulation of the Chinese export trade, but for a list of products 
that may be subject to central government export constraints, which the 
respondents claim does not involve the subject merchandise. 
Specifically, the respondents provided English translations of the law 
of the PRC on industrial enterprises ``owned by the people,'' enacted 
on April 13, 1988, and the regulations regarding the deregulation of 
state owned industrial enterprises, enacted on August 23, 1992. The 
articles of the 1988 law and 1992 regulations authorize these companies 
to make their own operational and managerial decisions.
    In prior cases, the Department has analyzed the laws which the 
respondents have submitted in this record and found that they establish 
an absence of de jure control. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer 
Slides With Rollers From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 54472 
(October 24, 1995);

[[Page 68234]]

see also Furfuryl Alcohol. We have no new information in these 
proceedings which would cause us to reconsider this determination.
    However, as in previous cases, there is some evidence that the PRC 
central government enactments have not been implemented uniformly among 
different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. (See Silicon Carbide 
and Furfuryl Alcohol.) Therefore, the Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by 
or subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol).
    Except for Guangdong Petroleum which has failed to respond to the 
Department's section A questionnaire, each respondent exporter has 
asserted the following: (1) it establishes its own EPs; (2) it 
negotiates contracts, without guidance from any governmental entities 
or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) it 
retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its 
business needs and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain 
loans. In addition, respondents' questionnaire responses indicate that 
company-specific pricing during the POI does not suggest coordination 
among exporters. This information supports a preliminary finding that 
there is a de facto absence of governmental control of the export 
functions of these companies.
    Consequently, we determine preliminarily that each of the 
participating exporters, meets the criteria for application of separate 
rates. Guangdong Petroleum, however, did not provide any information on 
the issue of de jure or de facto control of its operations. Therefore, 
we preliminarily determine that this exporter has not met the criteria 
enumerated above for the application of a separate rate. Consequently, 
we are applying a China-wide rate to this PRC exporter for purposes of 
the preliminary determination. Because Guangdong Petroleum submitted a 
response to Section C of the Department's questionnaire in connection 
with our request for additional information from Zhujian, and we are 
uncertain that Guangdong Petroleum received the full questionnaire 
issued to it on September 5, 1996, we intend to send Guangdong 
Petroleum a supplemental letter requesting, among other things, that it 
provide the information requested in the Department's Section A 
questionnaire in order to be considered for a separate rate in the 
final determination.

China-Wide Rate

    U.S. import statistics indicate that the total quantity and value 
of U.S. imports of persulfates from the PRC is greater than the total 
quantity and value of persulfates reported by all PRC companies that 
submitted responses. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that not all 
exporters of PRC persulfates responded to our questionnaire. 
Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping deposit rate--the 
China-Wide rate--to all exporters in the PRC (other than AJ and Wuxi), 
based on our presumption that those respondents who failed to respond 
constitute a single enterprise, and are under common control by the PRC 
government. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Bicycles from the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 
30, 1996) (Bicycles).
    This China-Wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts 
available. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an 
interested party or any other person--(A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority . . 
. shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the 
Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to 
the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The 
statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on 
secondary information, including information drawn from the petition.
    When multiple companies are treated as a single enterprise, the 
enterprise must submit a complete, consolidated response. If it fails 
to do so, the Department may base the margin calculation for the 
enterprise on the facts available. As discussed above, all PRC 
exporters that do not qualify for a separate rate are treated as a 
single enterprise. Because some exporters of the single enterprise 
failed to respond to the Department's requests for information, that 
single enterprise is considered to be uncooperative. Accordingly, 
consistent with section 776(b)(1) of the Act, we have applied, as total 
facts available, the higher of the average margin from the petition, as 
recalculated by the Department based on the corroboration efforts 
discussed below, or the highest rate calculated for a respondent in 
this proceeding. In the present case, based on our comparison of the 
calculated margins for the other respondents in this proceeding to the 
recalculated average margin in the petition, we have concluded that the 
petition is the most appropriate record information on which to form 
the basis for dumping calculations in this investigation. Accordingly, 
the Department has based the China-wide rate on information in the 
petition. In this case, the recalculated average petition rate is 76.65 
percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department relies 
on ``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA clarifies that the 
petition is ``secondary information.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA also 
clarifies that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative value. Id. However, where corroboration is not 
practicable, the Department may use uncorroborated information.
    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the 
margins in the petition to the extent practicable. The petitioner based 
EPs on price quotes obtained from U.S. importers, reduced by estimated 
importer mark-ups and movement charges. We compared the starting prices 
used by petitioner less the importer mark-ups against prices derived 
from U.S. import statistics and found that the two sets of

[[Page 68235]]

prices are consistent. We also compared the movement charges used in 
the petition with the surrogate values used by the Department in its 
margin calculations and found them to be consistent.
    Regarding normal value, petitioner used publicly available 
published information from India to value the factors of production. 
Petitioner based factory overhead (FOH), selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) and profit estimates on data from an annual 
report of National Peroxide Limited, an Indian producer of hydrogen 
peroxide. We compared this financial data against that obtained for 
other Indian chemical producers, and found that we could not 
corroborate this data. (See also, ``Factors Valuation'' section of this 
notice.) Therefore, we recalculated the FOH, SG&A and profit portions 
of the petitioner's normal value calculations using data obtained from 
the financial statement for Sanderson Industries Ltd. (``Sanderson''), 
which we found to be more consistent with that of the other Indian 
chemical producers examined.
    With respect to all other elements of the normal value calculation 
in the petition (i.e., materials, labor, energy and packing), the 
Department corroborated the values used in the petition by comparing 
them with values obtained from PI collected in this and previous NME 
investigations.
    Accordingly, we have corroborated, to the extent practicable, the 
data contained in the petition. Our recalculation of the FOH, SG&A and 
profit portions of the petitioner's margin calculations resulted in 
revised average margin rate of 76.65 percent. See Memorandum from the 
Team to Louis Apple regarding Factors Valuation for the Preliminary 
Determination dated December 18, 1996 (Factors Memorandum); and the 
Memorandum from the Team to Louis Apple regarding Corroboration of Data 
Contained in the Petition, dated December 18, 1996.

Export Price Issues

    Although we have not calculated a separate rate for Guangdong 
Petroleum for purposes of this preliminary determination, we will be 
affording Guangdong Petroleum a second opportunity to respond to 
Section A of the Department's questionnaire, as discussed in the 
``Separate Rates'' section of this notice. Furthermore, pending receipt 
of a complete Section A response from Guangdong Petroleum, we will 
revisit the issue regarding the appropriate basis for EP for this PRC 
exporter's sales to the United States in the final determination.
    During the POI, Zhujian sold subject merchandise to ICC through 
Guangdong Petroleum. In their questionnaire responses, both Zhujian and 
ICC claimed that ICC's prices to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States, rather than Guangdong Petroleum's prices to ICC, should form 
the basis for EP because neither Zhujian nor Guangdong Petroleum knew 
or had reason to know at the time of sale to ICC whether the 
merchandise was ultimately destined for the United States. After 
analyzing the record evidence in light of Zhujian and ICC's arguments, 
we have preliminarily determined that Guangdong Petroleum's prices to 
ICC are the more appropriate basis for calculating EP. As we understand 
the facts, ICC purchases persulfates from Guangdong Petroleum with the 
assistance of its Hong Kong office. ICC then warehouses the merchandise 
in New Jersey for resale to customers both inside and outside the 
United States. The record does not make clear whether this warehoused 
merchandise is entered for consumption or entered into a bonded 
warehouse in the United States. Nor is the record clear regarding the 
share of ICC's purchases from Guangdong Petroleum this warehoused 
merchandise accounts for. The record does indicate, however, that ICC 
is the U.S. importer of record. That is, Guangdong Petroleum sells the 
subject merchandise--in an arm's-length transaction--directly to the 
U.S. importer of record. This is, at first impression, an EP sales 
situation, requiring that Guangdong Petroleum's sales prices serve as 
the basis for EP. In such situations, the Department typically does not 
inquire into the disposition of the merchandise after importation.
    At verification, we intend to examine, among other things, the role 
and function of ICC's Hong Kong office and the extent to which ICC 
enters the merchandise into a bonded warehouse or for consumption in 
the United States. We hereby invite interested parties to comment on 
this issue. Interested party comments must be submitted no later than 
January 6, 1997.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether persulfates from the PRC sold to the United 
States by the PRC exporters receiving separate rates were made at less 
than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as specified in the 
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

    For both AJ and Wuxi, we calculated EP in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation and constructed export price (``CEP'') methodology was not 
otherwise indicated. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act, we compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to the factors of 
production.
    We made company-specific adjustments as follows:

1. AJ

    We calculated EP based on packed, CIF U.S. port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, as appropriate. We made 
deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for the 
following services which were provided by market economy suppliers: 
ocean freight; marine insurance; and U.S. inland insurance. We also 
deducted from the starting price, where appropriate, an amount for 
foreign inland freight and port construction fees. When these movement 
services were provided by nonmarket economy suppliers, we valued them 
using Indian rates.

2. Wuxi

    We calculated EP based on packed, FOB PRC port prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Wuxi claimed that all the 
expenses for movement services were paid by the purchaser and, thus, we 
did not make any adjustments to the starting price.

Normal Value

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by the factory in the PRC which 
produced persulfates sold by the two exporters. We valued all the input 
factors using PI from India.

Factor Valuations

    The selection of the surrogate values was based on the quality and 
contemporaneity of the data. Where possible, we attempted to value 
material inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive domestic prices. Where we 
were not able to rely on domestic prices, we used import prices to 
value factors. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them 
delivered prices. For those values not contemporaneous with the POI, we 
adjusted for inflation using wholesale price indices or, in the case of 
labor rates, consumer price indices, published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics. For a complete 
analysis of surrogate values, see Factors Memorandum.

[[Page 68236]]

    To value ammonium sulfate, caustic soda, caustic potash, sulfuric 
acid, and sodium sulfate we used public information from POI issues of 
the Indian publication Chemical Weekly. For potassium sulfate and 
anhydrous ammonia, we relied on import prices contained in the February 
and July 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of 
India (Monthly Statistics). To value ammonium persulfate, we used a 
price quotation obtained by interested parties from an Indian factory, 
the Rajendra Chemical Ltd., Bombay. For further discussion, see the 
Factors Memorandum.
    To value coal (steam), we relied on public information reported in 
the antidumping investigation of Pencils from the PRC. (See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Case Pencils from the 
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 55625, November 8, 1994.) For 
electricity, we relied upon public information from Confederation of 
Indian Industries Handbook of Statistics 1995 to obtain an average 
price for electricity provided to large-size industries. For oil, we 
relied on public information reported in the antidumping investigation 
of Polyvinyl Alcohol from the PRC. (See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of 
China 61 FR 14057 (March 29, 1996) (Polyvinyl Alcohol)). To value water 
we relied on public information reported in the antidumping 
investigation of Coumarin from the PRC. (See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 66895, December 28, 1994) (Coumarin).
    To value packing materials such as polyethylene liners and 
polypropylene sacks, we relied upon Indian import data from the 
February and July 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics.
    Regarding wooden pallets, we relied on public information reported 
in the antidumping investigation of Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from 
the PRC. (See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of 
China, 61 FR 53190, October 10, 1996).
    To value labor, we inflated to POI values, 1990 labor data from the 
United Nations' publication Yearbook of Labour Statistics (YLS), and we 
relied on methodology used in the antidumping investigation of Coumarin 
(See also Factors Memorandum). Although one of the respondents provided 
1994 Indian labor rates from the 1995 World Labor Report, Foreign Labor 
Trends, we did not use these rates because they reflected the 
experience in the general manufacturing sector and not labor rates 
specific to the chemical sector.
    To value truck freight, we used public information from the Indian 
periodical The Times of India. To value ocean freight we used public 
information from the antidumping investigation of Coumarin. To value 
containerization and loading, we relied on public information reported 
in the antidumping investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol.
    To value foreign brokerage and handling, we relied on public 
information reported in the antidumping investigation of Stainless 
Steel Bar from India. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915, December 28, 
1996.) For marine insurance, we used public information reported in the 
antidumping investigation of Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, 
from India. (See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat Dyes, from India, 58 FR 7535, 7538, 
February 8, 1993.)
    To value FOH, SG&A and profit, we relied on the financial 
statements of Sanderson, an Indian producer of sulphuric acid and other 
chemicals, which were submitted by Zhujian/ICC, because this financial 
data was consistent with that obtained from other chemical producers. 
The alternative data submitted by the petitioner which relied on the 
financial statements of an Indian producer of hydrogen peroxide was 
inappropriate when benchmarked against the financial data for other 
chemical producers. (See Factors Memorandum.) We also determined that 
the data submitted by AJ, AJ Works, and Wuxi, which relied on aggregate 
financial data from the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the Indian 
metals and chemicals industries was inappropriate because it was not 
industry-specific. (See Factors Memorandum.)
    Where appropriate, we have removed from the surrogate FOH and SG&A 
calculations the excise duty amount listed in the financial statements 
(see Bicycles, 61 FR 19039). We adjusted the FOH, SG&A, and profit 
percentages that the respondent calculated from Sanderson's financial 
statements as follows: (1) we included manufacturing energy expenses in 
the base to which the FOH rate is applied, (2) we included ``other'' 
expenses and ``miscellaneous'' expenses in SG&A, and (3) we calculated 
the profit percentage using profit before prior period adjustments. 
(See Factors Memorandum.)

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the 
information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the 
Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of persulfates 
from the PRC, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. The Customs Service will require a cash deposit or 
posting of a bond equal to the estimated dumping margins by which the 
normal value exceeds the EP, as shown below. These suspension of 
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-  
             Manufacturer/producer/exporter               average margin
                                                            percentage  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation............           15.62
Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import & Export Corporation.......           50.35
China-Wide Rate.........................................           76.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

China-Wide Rate

    A China-Wide Rate has been assigned to persulfates based on the 
average margin contained in the petition, as amended by the Department. 
The China-Wide rate applies to all entries of that product except for 
entries from exporters/factories that are identified individually 
above.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative, 
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of 
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the corresponding U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration no later than March 26, 1997, and 
rebuttal briefs, no later than March 31, 1997. A list of authorities 
used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs should accompany 
these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five pages total, 
including footnotes.

[[Page 68237]]

We will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or 
rebuttal briefs. At this time, the hearing is scheduled for April 3, 
1997, time and place to be determined, at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of 
the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be 
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) oral presentations will 
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation 
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination by no later 
than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act.

    Dated: December 18, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-32871 Filed 12-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P