[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