[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48597-48601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24564]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-815]
Sulfanilic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of the 1995-1996 antidumping
administrative review of Sulfanilic Acid from the People's Republic of
China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid from the People's Republic of
China (PRC). This review covers the period August 1, 1995 through July
31, 1996, and all PRC exporters of the subject merchandise.
We gave all interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. After we reviewed the comments received, the
margins in the final results did not change from those presented in the
preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Smith or Kristen Stevens,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3793.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 19 CFR
part 353 (April 1997).
Background
On May 12, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register
(62 FR 25917) the preliminary results of its administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid from the PRC (57 FR
37524, August 19, 1992). This review covers exports of subject
merchandise to the United States for the period August 1, 1995 through
July 31, 1996, and all PRC exporters of sulfanilic acid, including, but
not limited to, the following thirteen firms: China National Chemical
Import and Export Corporation, Hebei Branch (Sinochem Hebei); China
National Chemical Construction Corporation, Beijing Branch; China
National Chemical Construction Corporation, Qingdao Branch; Sinochem
Qingdao; Sinochem Shandong; Baoding No. 3 Chemical Factory; Jinxing
Chemical Factory; Zhenxing Chemical Factory; Mancheng Zinyu Chemical
Factory, Shijiazhuang; Mancheng Xinyu Chemical Factory, Bejing; Hainan
Garden Trading Company; Yude Chemical Company and Shunping Lile. We
have now completed the administrative review in accordance with section
751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are all grades of sulfanilic acid,
which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or
purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.
Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the
direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is
used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food
colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal
differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of
residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the
sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.
Technical sulfanilic acid contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic
acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali
insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid contains 98 percent
minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent
maximum alkali insoluble materials.
Sodium salt is a powder, granular or crystalline material which
contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent
maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and
0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent
sulfanilic acid content.
This merchandise is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) subheadings 2921.42.22 and 2921.42.90. Although the HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
[[Page 48598]]
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is
dispositive.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Only two firms, Yude and Zhenxing, responded to the Department's
questionnaire and demonstrated that they are entitled to a separate
rate. All firms that have not demonstrated that they qualify for a
separate rate are deemed to be part of a single enterprise under the
common control of the government (the ``PRC enterprise''). Therefore,
all such entities receive a single margin, the ``PRC rate.'' We
preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act,
that resort to the facts otherwise available is appropriate for the PRC
rate because companies deemed to be part of the PRC enterprise for
which a review was requested have not responded to the Department's
antidumping questionnaire.
Where the Department must resort to the facts otherwise available
because a respondent fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of
the Act authorizes the Department to use an inference adverse to the
interests of that respondent in choosing from the facts available.
Section 776(b) also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts
available information derived from the petition, the final
determination of the less than fair value investigation or a previous
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. The
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA
clarifies that information from the petition and prior segments of the
proceeding is ``secondary information.'' See H.Doc. 3216, 103rd Cong.
2d Sess. 870 (1996). If the Department relies on secondary information
as facts available, section 776(c) provides that the Department shall,
to the extent practicable, corroborate such information using
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA further
provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative
value. However, where corroboration is not practicable, the Department
may use uncorroborated information.
In the present case the Department has based the margin on
information in the petition. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from
South Africa, 61 FR 24272 (May 14, 1996). In accordance with section
776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the data contained in the petition,
as adjusted for initiation purposes, to the extent possible. The
petition data on major material inputs are consistent with Indian
import statistics, and also with price quotations obtained by the U.S.
Embassies in Pakistan and India. Both of these corroborating sources
were placed on the record during the investigation and have been added
to the record of this review. In addition, we note that the petition
used World Bank labor rates which we have repeatedly found to be a
probative source of data. Based on our ability to corroborate other
elements of the petition calculation, we preliminarily find that the
information contained in the petition has probative value.
Accordingly, we have relied upon the information contained in the
petition. We have assigned to all exporters other than Yude and
Zhenxing a margin of 85.20 percent, the margin in the petition, as
adjusted by the Department for initiation purposes.
Analysis of Comments Received
We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary
results. We received written comments from Yude Chemical Industry Co.
(Yude), Zhenxing Chemical Industry Co. (Zhenxing), PHT International,
Inc. (PHT), and from the petitioner, Nation Ford Chemical Company.
Comment 1: Petitioner claims that the use of Indian import prices
for aniline as the surrogate value for aniline used by the PRC
respondents in this case is inappropriate because the plain language of
the statute does not permit the Department to use imported aniline
prices when the NME respondents use domestically-sourced aniline.
Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly based the surrogate
value for aniline on Indian sulfanilic acid production processes,
instead of reported PRC production processes. Petitioner contends that
the Department must first identify the NME factors of production and
then, using those same factors, obtain surrogate values from a market
economy country at a similar level of economic development. Petitioner
contends that because respondents use domestically-sourced aniline to
manufacture sulfanilic acid, the Department must value aniline using
prices for aniline domestically produced in India.
Petitioner also contends that the Department has recently stated a
clear preference for using domestic market prices in the surrogate
country to value factors of production when such prices are available.
As support for this position, Petitioner cites Brake Drums and Brake
Rotors from the PRC, 62 FR 9163; Persulfates from the PRC, 61 FR
68,232, 68,235; Sebacic Acid from the PRC, 59 FR 565, 568; and
Tehnoimportexport v. United States, 16 CIT 13, 783 F. Supp. 1401
(1992).
Petitioner also argues that the profitability of surrogate country
producers in export markets is irrelevant to the Department's valuation
of the factors of production utilized by the NME enterprises under
investigation. Thus, they urge the Department to disregard respondents'
argument that Indian producers could not make a profit on export sales
if they used Indian-produced aniline.
Furthermore, Petitioner contends that the values for imported
aniline used in the preliminary results cannot be used because, they
claim, these values are based on subsidized prices. According to
petitioners, the Department has determined that the Indian Advanced
License program is a countervailable subsidy under U.S. law. Sulfanilic
Acid From India, 57 FR 35,785 (Aug. 11, 1992); Sulfanilic Acid From
India, 58 FR 12,026 (Mar. 2, 1993). Under this program the normal 85%
duty on imported aniline is not collected if sulfanilic acid produced
with imported aniline is subsequently exported. Petitioner contends
that Indian sulfanilic acid producers receive a government subsidy to
the extent that they pay duty-free prices for imported aniline.
Petitioner states that the Department is precluded from using
imported aniline prices due to the reasons stated above. Therefore,
Petitioner contends that the Department should use as surrogate values
the domestic market prices for aniline published in the Indian
publications Chemical Business and Chemical Weekly. Petitioner states
that these are ``contemporaneous, product-specific, tax-exclusive, and
non-export prices.'' Petitioner maintains that these publications are
reliable sources as evidenced by the Department's use of these sources
in several antidumping investigations and reviews involving PRC
products, including the Department's valuation of activated carbon in
the preliminary results of this case.
Respondent argues that the Department correctly valued aniline
using Indian import statistics because Indian sulfanilic acid producers
used imported aniline to produce sulfanilic acid for export.
Respondents refer to the 1993-94 and 1994-95 administrative reviews of
this case in which the Department previously used Indian import
statistics in valuing aniline. Respondents also cite the decision of
[[Page 48599]]
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Lasko Metal
Products, Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (1994), in which
the CAFC stated that in the underlying case the best available
information on what the supplies used by the Chinese manufacturers
would cost in a market economy country was the price charged for those
supplies on the international market. Respondent argues that the value
of the aniline used by the Indian producer to make sulfanilic acid for
export is the import price for aniline, which reflects the cost of
aniline on the international market.
Department Position: We agree with respondent that the Indian
import values provide a better approximation than Indian domestic
prices of what the inputs used by the Chinese manufacturers would cost
were the PRC a market economy country. Evidence on the record of this
review indicates that a two-tier pricing system for aniline exists in
India as a result of the combination of an 85% tariff on imports of
aniline and the effects of the advanced license program, which waives
that tariff when imported aniline is used in the production of
sulfanilic acid for export. Thus, Commerce had two main options in
selecting a surrogate value for aniline: the Indian domestic price paid
by Indian producers of sulfanilic acid for the Indian domestic market
and the duty-free, Indian import price for aniline paid by Indian
producers of sulfanilic acid for the export market. As in prior
reviews, Commerce has chosen to use the average Indian import price
because it is the value of the aniline used to produce sulfanilic acid
for the export market (and the costs constructed using the surrogate
methodology are the costs for Chinese production for the export
market).
Petitioner's claim that the ``factor of production'' to be valued
is ``domestic aniline,'' such that the statute requires that the value
of this factor be assigned based on aniline produced domestically in
India, has no support in law or fact. There is no indication on the
record that the aniline used by the Chinese producers, which their
public response indicates is locally sourced rather than imported, is
physically or chemically different from the aniline that is produced in
India or imported into India, or that the sulfanilic acid ``production
process'' is different in either China or India depending upon whether
imported or domestically-sourced aniline is used. There is no reason
why Commerce must base its valuation on ``domestic'' (Indian-produced)
aniline because the PRC factories use ``domestic'' (PRC-produced)
aniline. Aniline is a generic, fungible input, not altered by whether
it is imported or sourced in the same country in which it is used. The
factor to be valued in this case is not ``domestic aniline'' but simply
``aniline.''
Nor is Commerce compelled to use domestic values simply because
some domestic market values exist. The Court of International Trade has
long recognized that Commerce has often used import statistics (to
value both inputs imported into NME countries and imports sourced
locally in NME countries) and that import prices into the surrogate
country are an acceptable reflection of the value of that input in the
surrogate country. See, e.g., Tehnoimportexport v. United States
(1992), 783 F. Supp. 1401, 1405. In this case, the prices for
domestically produced aniline on the record of this review are not
suitable for use as surrogates for the PRC cost of aniline because
these prices are artificially high due to India's 85% import tax.
With respect to the question of whether Indian producers could
profitably produce sulfanilic acid for export using Indian-sourced
aniline, we note that we have not based our choice of surrogate value
for aniline on respondents' suggestion that this would not be possible.
No such finding is necessary. The aniline purchase choices of Indian
manufacturers of sulfanilic acid (as reflected in the record) are
relevant primarily as an indication that the price of aniline when used
for production of sulfanilic acid for sale in India is unusually high,
and thus, inappropriate for purposes of valuation of PRC export
production costs.
Finally, petitioner's argument that the aniline import values are
``subsidized prices'' which therefore cannot be used as surrogate
values misses the mark. Assuming, for the purposes of argument, that
the Indian Advanced License program identified in 1992 as constituting
a subsidy to Indian-produced sulfanilic acid would still be found to be
countervailable, this program would constitute a subsidy to Indian-
produced sulfanilic acid, not to aniline imported into India from other
countries. Thus, Commerce would avoid using, as a surrogate value, the
export value of Indian-produced sulfanilic acid, but not of imported
aniline. The Indian Import Statistics used by the Department to value
aniline are pre-tariff prices, which are unaffected by whether or not
subsequently added duties charged to the importer are waived on a given
shipment. The sort of subsidy Commerce is concerned with when it uses
import prices is a producer-country subsidy that would artificially
lower the import price. India has no interest in subsidizing aniline
produced in other countries and imported into India. Because any
subsidy which may be associated with the importation of aniline under
the Advanced License Program for purposes of producing sulfanilic acid
for export is a subsidy not to aniline but to sulfanilic acid, it does
not provide a reason for rejecting aniline import values for purposes
of serving as surrogates for the cost of aniline (not sulfanilic acid)
to PRC producers.
Comment 2: Petitioner argues that if the Department uses Indian
import statistics to value aniline in the final results, the Department
should adjust the import values upward to reflect Indian import duties.
Petitioner contends that the Indian Advance License program is similar
to duty drawback. In the case of duty drawback the customs duty
refunded to the importer would be added to U.S. Price under 19 U.S. C.
1677a(d)(1)(B) if the respondent can show that the importer took
advantage of the duty drawback program. Petitioner argues that there is
no evidence in this review that any of the Indian producers of
sulfanilic acid took advantage of the Advance License program.
Petitioners contend that the burden is on the Respondents to show that
Indian sulfanilic acid producers either did not pay the import duties
or received refunds of import duties payable on imports of aniline upon
the exportation of finished sulfanilic acid.
Petitioner also argues that because the Indian Advanced License
program has been found to be a countervailable subsidy under U.S. law,
the Department should add the import duties to the import values used
as the surrogate value of aniline for this reason.
Respondents contend that the Department should follow its precedent
in the prior administrative reviews of this case and not add the 85%
import duty to the value of aniline taken from the Indian Import
Statistics. Respondents argue that the only way that Indian sulfanilic
acid factories can produce sulfanilic acid for export is to import
aniline duty free under India's import duty exemption scheme.
Respondents argue that the Department does not need to verify that
every Indian producer and exporter uses the Advance License program and
should base its determine on the evidence on the record of this
investigation.
Department's Position: We agree with respondents that we should not
add to the Indian import values an amount corresponding to the 85% tax
levied by the Indian government on imported
[[Page 48600]]
aniline which is not subsequently used in the manufacture of another
product for export. Because these Indian import duties do not represent
costs that a PRC producer would pay if the PRC were a market economy,
it is the Department's practice to refrain from including any such
duties in an NME surrogate price. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings
from the PRC, 62 FR 6173, 6177 (February 11, 1997)(Comment 3);
Lockwashers from the PRC, 58 FR 48833, 48843 (September 20, 1993)
(Comments 12 and 13).
In this case, there are also two additional reasons for not adding
on the amount of the import tax. The 85% tax at issue is not only
unique to India; it is also abnormally high for an import tax, and is,
furthermore, not even paid by producers of sulfanilic acid for the
export market.
Respondents have placed on the record of this review published
Indian government materials describing the operation of the Advance
License system and its use to avoid payment of duties on aniline used
to produce sulfanilic acid for export from India. Respondents have also
placed on the record, inter alia, a letter from an Indian sulfanilic
acid exporter explaining in detail how it imports aniline duty free,
works with an Indian sulfanilic acid producer to produce sulfanilic
acid from the imported aniline, and then exports the sulfanilic acid
without paying duty on the imported aniline, and a letter from an
Indian sulfanilic acid producer stating that it uses imported aniline
to produce sulfanilic acid. Thus, petitioner's claim that there is no
evidence on the record of this review that Indian producers of
sulfanilic acid used the Advance License program and thus avoided
payment of the 85% duty is without basis.
Also without basis is petitioner's claim that Commerce must add the
85% import tax to the import values absent the same type of evidence
required to support a duty drawback adjustment to U.S. price. The PRC
respondents in this review are not seeking a duty drawback adjustment
to a United States price for sulfanilic acid exports from India (the
country granting the duty drawback), and are not privy to the
confidential documents of the Indian sulfanilic acid companies
involved. What we are attempting to determine here is a surrogate value
for Chinese aniline. The question of whether particular Indian
exporters of sulfanilic acid imported sufficient aniline to qualify for
duty drawback might be relevant if we were determining the U.S. price
of Indian sulfanilic acid. However, it is simply immaterial to the
question of the value of aniline.
Finally, petitioner has no basis for insisting that the 85% duty be
added onto the aniline import value because of an alleged subsidy to
the price of imported aniline. As explained above, any subsidy that may
exist is a subsidy to Indian-produced sulfanilic acid, not to aniline
produced elsewhere and imported into India.
Comment 3: Respondents contend that Indian export prices for
activated carbon should be used instead of Indian import statistics
because the import prices do not reflect the prices of the liquid phase
activated carbon used by the Indian and Chinese sulfanilic acid
producers. Respondents state that activated carbon can be classified as
gas phase or liquid phase. Respondents argue that gas phase activated
carbon is generally higher in price and is used in small quantities,
while liquid phase activated carbon is a less expensive industrial
grade which is used in larger quantities. Respondents also state that
liquid phase activated carbon is generally sold in powder form.
Respondents argue that prices for imported activated carbon are
aberrational and do not reflect the prices for liquid phase activated
carbon, the type used by the Chinese respondents. Respondents cite as
precedent the Department's approach in the less than fair value
investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol from the PRC, (``Polyvinyl
Alcohol''), in which the Department used Indian export, rather than
import, values as a surrogate for Chinese activated carbon. Respondents
submit that due to the great price disparity between the import and
export prices, it is highly unlikely that Indian sulfanilic acid
producers would use imported activated carbon to produce sulfanilic
acid for export.
Respondents argue that in using import values in its preliminary
determination, the Department did not take into consideration the
quality of the activated carbon used by the Chinese respondents or the
quality of the activated carbon imported into India. Respondents argue
that the record of this case contains public price quotes from an
Indian activated carbon producer and an Indian chemical export company
which support the use of the submitted published export price.
Additionally, respondents argue that the quantities associated with
the sales of imported activated carbon used in the preliminary
determination demonstrate that the imports are for the gas phase
activated carbon, not the industrial liquid phase activated carbon. The
quantity of the shipments cited in the Department's Surrogate Value
Memorandum of May 5th, 1997 for this review of sulfanilic acid from the
PRC, shows that the valuation of activated carbon was based on
shipments varying in total weight from 2 to 7.8 metric tons per
shipment and were primarily imported by laboratories. In contrast, the
record of this review shows that during the POR the respondent
companies used 90 to 100 metric tons of activated carbon as compared to
the total of 26.9 metric tons used for valuation purposes. Respondents
contend that this small quantity associated with the import sales
supports their argument that these imports are of the more expensive
gas phase type of activated carbon. Additionally, respondents contend
that the quantities required by respondents would surely merit quantity
discounts, not reflected by the subject prices.
Petitioners did not comment on respondents' arguments with respect
to activated carbon.
Department Position: We agree with Respondents that the import
prices do not appear to correspond to the type of activated carbon used
by Chinese manufacturers. The record of this review contains two
sources of publicly available published price data on activated carbon.
The published import prices contain information more contemporaneous to
the period of review than the submitted published export price.
However, neither of these sources state which types of activated carbon
are contained in these sales. The Department consulted with a chemical
products specialist at the International Trade Commission who confirmed
that there is a distinction between liquid and gas phase activated
carbon, and that liquid phase activated carbon is generally sold in
powdered form. (See Memorandum to the File dated August 21, 1997 from
Case Analyst.) The great disparity between the import and export prices
suggests that these price quotes may be for different grades of
activated carbon. Respondents have additionally provided public price
quotes which are specific to the type and grade of activated carbon
reported in the Chinese sulfanilic acid producers' factors of
production response. These price quotes, which are contemporaneous to
the POR, are comparable to the published export price indexed to the
POR.
The Department has previously found that Indian export prices for
activated carbon are more reliable than import prices in the Polyvinyl
Alcohol investigation. This issue was not mentioned in the Federal
Register notice of the final determination, but the
[[Page 48601]]
Department's Polyvinyl Alcohol preliminary determination concurrence
memorandum states that ``in the case of activated carbon, we compared
the export and import statistics values to other available data and
found that the import statistics values varied substantially greater
from the other comparison values, as shown in the Attachment 1 chart.
By comparison the export value varied by a lesser extent.'' See
Polyvinyl Alcohol attachments to the Final Analysis Memorandum for
Sulfanilic Acid from the PRC, September 9, 1997. Because the public
price quotes submitted by respondents on the record of this sulfanilic
acid review are contemporaneous to the POR, are supported by publicly
available published information (i.e., the export price), and are
specific to the type and grade of activated carbon used by the Chinese
producers, we have used the average of these prices as the surrogate
value for this factor.
Clerical Errors
Respondents contend that the Department made one clerical error in
its preliminary results. They state that, in calculating the surrogate
value for activated carbon, the Department used incorrect wholesale
price indices (WPI's) when it adjusted the sales prices for April 4,
May 2, and May 16, 1995, for inflation. For the final results of
review, we used price quotes contemporaneous to the time period.
Therefore, the surrogate value for this factor will not be indexed for
inflation using the WPI.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review of the comments received, we have
determined that the following margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yude Chemical Industry Company.......... 8/1/95-7/31/96 0.00
Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company...... 8/1/95-7/31/96 0.00
PRC Rate \1\............................ 8/1/95-7/31/96 85.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This rate will be applied to all firms other than Yude and Zhenxing,
including all firms which did not respond to our questionnaire
requests.
* Yude and Zhenxing have been collapsed for the purposes of this
administrative review. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review of Sulfanilic Acid from the PRC (62 FR 25917)
May 12, 1997. However, we have listed them separately on this chart
for Customs purposes.
The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results for all shipments of sulfanilic acid
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) The cash deposit rates for reviewed companies named
above which have separate rates will be the rates for those firms
listed above; (2) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate
will be the highest margin ever in the LTFV investigation or in this or
prior administrative reviews, the PRC-wide rate; and (3) the cash
deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC
will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
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: September 9, 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-24564 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P