[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17367-17372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-825]


Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of sebacic acid from the People's Republic of 
China.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to requests from 
the petitioner, Union Camp Corporation, and four respondents: Tianjin 
Chemicals Import and Export Corporation (Tianjin), Guangdong Chemicals 
Import and Export Corporation (Guangdong), Sinochem International 
Chemicals Company, Ltd. (SICC) and Sinochem Jiangsu Import and Export 
Corporation (Jiangsu). This review covers four exporters of the subject 
merchandise. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 1996, through June 
30, 1997.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV) during this period. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will 
instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on 
the difference between the United States price (USP) and NV. These 
assessment rates, if adopted for the final results of the review, will 
be calculated on an importer-specific ad valorem duty basis. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Stephen Jacques, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-1391.
    APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS: 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 in reference to the regulations, codified 
at 19 CFR part 351, published on May 19, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC on July 14, 1995 (59 FR 35909). 
On July 21, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register (62 
FR 38973) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC covering the 
period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997.
    On July 30, 1997, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Union Camp 
requested that we conduct an administrative review of Tianjin, 
Guangdong, SICC, and Jiangsu. On July 29, 1997, Tianjin, Guangdong and 
SICC requested that we conduct an administrative review. Also on July 
29, 1997, Tianjin has requested partial revocation of the antidumping 
duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC. However, because we have 
preliminarily determined a margin of 3.53 percent for Tianjin, which is 
above the Department's de minimis standard of 0.5 percent, we 
preliminarily determine that Tianjin has not met the requirements for 
revocation. We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping 
duty administrative review on August 28, 1997 (62 FR 45621). On August 
30, 1997, we issued questionnaires to the four respondents. Jiangsu did 
not respond to the Department's questionnaire. The Department is 
conducting this

[[Page 17368]]

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this order are all grades of sebacic acid, 
a dicarboxylic acid with the formula (CH2)8(COOH)2, which include but 
are not limited to CP Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA 
color), Purified Grade (1000ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), 
and Nylon Grade (500ppm maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The 
principal difference between the grades is the quantity of ash and 
color. Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of 
which the predominant species is the C10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is 
sold generally as a free-flowing powder/flake.
    Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production 
of nylon 6/10 (a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles 
and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants, 
polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives, 
lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.
    Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading 
2917.13.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
proceeding remains dispositive.
    This review covers the period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997, 
and four exporters of Chinese sebacic acid.

Verification

    We conducted verification of the sales and factor information 
provided by respondent Tianjin located in Tianjin, PRC and one of its 
producers, Hengshui Dongfeng Chemical Plant (Hengshui), located in 
Hengshui, PRC. We conducted the verifications using standard 
verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public versions of the verification reports.

Separate Rates

1. Background and Summary of Findings

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy countries a 
single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. 
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as amplified in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 
22585, May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). Evidence supporting, though 
not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over 
export activities includes: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; 
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control 
of companies. Evidence relevant to a de facto absence of government 
control with respect to exports is based on four factors, whether the 
respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent from the 
government and other exporters; (2) can retain the proceeds from its 
export sales; (3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts; 
and (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; See also Sparklers at 20589.
    In our final determination of sales at less than fair value for the 
POR covering July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996, the Department 
determined that there was de jure and de facto absence of government 
control of each company's export activities and determined that each 
company warranted a company-specific dumping margin. See Final Results 
of Antidumping Administrative Review: Sebacic Acid From the People's 
Republic of China (62 FR 65674, December 15, 1997) (``Sebacic Acid''). 
For this period of review, SICC , Tianjin and Guangdong have responded 
to the Department's request for information regarding separate rates. 
We have found that the evidence on the record is consistent with the 
final determination in the previous administrative review and continues 
to demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in 
fact, with respect to their exports, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. During verification of 
Tianjin, we examined its business and financial statements. We found no 
evidence of government control of Tianjin's export activities.

2. Separate Rate Determination for Non-Responsive Company

    For Jiangsu, which did not respond to the questionnaire, we 
preliminarily determine that this company does not merit a separate 
rate. Because the Department assigns a single rate to companies in a 
non-market economy unless an exporter can demonstrate absence of 
government control, we preliminarily determine that Jiangsu is subject 
to the country-wide rate for this case.

United States Price

    For SICC, Tianjin and Guangdong, the Department based USP on export 
price (EP), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. We made 
deductions from EP, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 
ocean freight, brokerage and handling, and marine insurance. See 
``Factor Valuation'' section of this notice. We selected India as the 
surrogate country for the reasons explained in the ``Normal Value'' 
section of this notice.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production 
methodology if: (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country; 
and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using 
home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under 
section 773(a) of the Act.
    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all 
previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not 
permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country 
prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has 
contested such treatment in this review. Therefore, we treated the PRC 
as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by 
valuing the factors of production in a comparable market economy 
country which is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. 
Factors of production include, but are not limited to: (1) hours of 
labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts 
of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital 
cost, including depreciation.

[[Page 17369]]

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408 of the 
Department's regulations direct us to select a surrogate country that 
is economically comparable to the PRC. On the basis of per capita gross 
domestic product (GDP), the growth rate in per capita GDP, and the 
national distribution of labor, we find that India is a comparable 
economy to the PRC (See Memorandum from Director, Office of Policy, to 
Office Director, AD/CVD Group III, Office 9, dated February 5, 1998).
    The statute (section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408 of 
the Department's regulations) also requires that, to the extent 
possible, the Department use a surrogate country that is a significant 
producer of merchandise comparable to sebacic acid. The countries that 
we confirmed to be producers of sebacic acid, such as Japan and the 
United States, do not have economies comparable to the PRC. We found 
that information contained in respondent's December 4, 1997 submission 
indicates that India was a producer of sebacic acid during the POR. 
Although we do not have information about the quantity of sebacic acid 
produced in India, we reviewed a fax from an Indian sebacic acid 
producer with a price quote to a U.S. importer. Moreover, in the last 
administrative review of this order, we determined that India is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise (e.g., oxalic acid) 
during the POR. (See the Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of the 1996/1997 Review for sebacic acid, page 2) Therefore, we 
find that India fulfills both requirements of the statute.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of 
production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In 
examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly 
available value which was: (1) an average non-export value; (2) 
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most 
contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-
exclusive. For those values not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price indices published in 
the IMF's International Financial Statistics. When necessary, we 
adjusted the values reported in the Chemical Weekly to exclude sales 
and excise taxes. In accordance with our practice, we added to CIF 
import values from India a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of 
the reported distances from either the closest PRC port to the factory, 
or from the domestic supplier to the factory. See Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From the People's Republic of China (62 FR 61977, November 20, 
1997) In accordance with this methodology, we valued the factors of 
production as follows:
    For castor oil, the Department did not use the surrogate values for 
castor oil submitted by petitioners in their December 4, 1997 
submission because there was no source documentation. We did not use 
respondent's data because we could not determine whether they were 
contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we have valued this material 
using price data reported in The Economic Times (Bombay), adjusted for 
inflation, for Hyderabad, Kanpur, Calcutta, and Delhi during the months 
of June 1995 through December 1995. The Department adjusted these 
values to account for freight costs between the supplier and the 
respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
    For castor seed, the Department did not use the surrogate values 
for castor oil submitted by petitioners in their December 4, 1997 
submission because there was no source documentation. We did not use 
respondent's data as we could not determine whether they were the 
contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we have valued this material 
using price data reported in The Economic Times (Bombay), adjusted for 
inflation, for Hyderabad and Kanpur during the months of June 1995 
through December 1995. The Department adjusted these values to account 
for freight costs between the supplier and the respondents' sebacic 
acid manufacturing facilities.
    For caustic soda, the Department used a value reported in the 
publication Chemical Weekly (published in India), using a value 
published in July 1997 (with a June 1997 price value) submitted by 
respondents. Because price quotes for caustic soda reported by Chemical 
Weekly are for chemicals with a 100% concentration level of caustic 
soda, we made chemical purity adjustments according to the particular 
concentration level of caustic soda used by respondents. We adjusted 
this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred 
from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing 
facilities.
    For macropore resin, we are using the value for activated carbon 
because the valuations are interchangeable, according to an April 1997 
Memorandum from Richard Moreland, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
Import Administration to all reviewers. For activated carbon, we are 
using a value from Chemical Weekly from December 1996 submitted by 
respondent. The Department adjusted this value to account for freight 
costs between the supplier and the respondents' sebacic acid 
manufacturing facilities.
    For cresol, we are using respondents December 4, 1997 submission of 
data for price quotes for meta cresol, ortho cresol, and para cresol 
from Chemical Weekly from January 1997. We followed the same 
methodology to calculate a value for cresol that we used in the 
previous administrative review. Before calculating the cresol value, we 
adjusted the para cresol value to exclude sales and excise taxes but we 
did not have to adjust the meta cresol or ortho cresol values to 
exclude sales and excise taxes. We adjusted the value to include 
freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to the respondents' 
sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
    In Hengshui's questionnaire response to the Department, it 
submitted a usage factor for activated carbon. However, in pre-
verification corrections, Hengshui stated it no longer uses activated 
carbon to produce sebacic acid, so we did not use activated carbon as 
an input.
    For sodium chloride (also referred to as sodium chlorite or vacuum 
salt), we are using a published market price reported in Chemical 
Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted this 
value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred from 
the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing 
facilities.
    For phenol, we are using a published market price reported in 
Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted 
this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred 
from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing 
facilities.
    For zinc oxide, we are using a published market price reported in 
Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. We adjusted 
this value to exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred 
from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing 
facilities.
    For sulphuric acid, we are using a published market price reported 
in Chemical Weekly from January 1997 submitted by respondents. Because 
price quotes for sulphuric acid reported by Chemical Weekly are for 
chemicals with a 100% concentration level of sulphuric acid, we made 
chemical purity adjustments according to the particular concentration 
level of sulphuric acid used by respondents. We adjusted this value to 
exclude taxes and to include freight expenses incurred from the 
suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.

[[Page 17370]]

    For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate at Import 
Administration's homepage, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected 
NME Countries, revised on June 2, 1997. Because of the variability of 
wage rates in countries with similar per capita GDPs, section 
351.408(c)(3) of the Department's new AD regulations (62 FR 27296, May 
19, 1997) requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source 
of this wage rate data on the Import Administration's homepage is found 
in the 1996 Year Book of Labour Statistics, International Labour Office 
(``ILO''), (Geneva: 1996), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The 
years of the reported wage rates range from 1990 to 1995.
    At verification, we discovered that Hengshui underreported 
unskilled labor employees because Hengshui was not able to substantiate 
its verbal claim, with source documentation, that additional unskilled 
labor employees were not involved in producing sebacic acid. At 
verification, we reviewed the employee salary ledger and the labor 
worksheet for the sebacic acid production unit and determined that the 
additional unskilled labor employees on the employee salary list for 
the sebacic acid production unit were involved in producing sebacic 
acid. Therefore, we increased the number of unskilled direct labor 
hours used to make sebacic acid to the reported labor usage factors. As 
this subject involves proprietary information, please see the Analysis 
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 Review for 
sebacic acid for a more complete discussion of this issue.
    For factory overhead, we used information obtained from the April 
1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. From ``Statement 1--Combined 
Income, Value of Production, Expenditure and Appropriation Accounts, 
Industry Group-wise'' of that report for the Indian metals and 
chemicals industries, we summed those components which pertain to 
overhead expenses and divided them by the sum of those components 
pertaining to the cost of manufacturing to calculate a factory overhead 
rate of 15.41 percent. We multiplied this factory overhead rate of 
15.41 percent by the cost of manufacture divided by one minus the 
factory overhead rate of 15.41 percent.
    For steam coal, we used prices published in Monthly Statistics of 
the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports for the period of April 
1995 through January 1996, adjusted for inflation. We did not use the 
respondents' submitted OECD/IEA data for steam coal from 1990 because 
we had more recent data. Hengshui reported one aggregate category of 
coal in its questionnaire response. However, at verification, Hengshui 
presented corrections at the beginning of verification which split the 
single coal category into two sub-categories: soft and hard coal. We 
verified that Hengshui's use of two types of coal were correctly 
presented to the Department at verification. Consequently, for 
Hengshui, we have used the value for soft coal from the Gazette of 
India, June 1994, adjusted for inflation. However, we were unable to 
obtain publicly available information for hard coal. Therefore, for 
Hengshui's hard coal, we are using the steam coal value from the 
Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports for 
the period of April 1995 through January 1996, adjusted for inflation. 
For all three types of coal used (hard, soft, and steam), we adjusted 
the values to include freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to 
the respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
    For electricity, the respondents submitted electricity data from 
1990, which was not used because we had more recent data. We used 
information obtained from the Current Energy Scene in India for July 
1995 and adjusted this value for inflation. At verification, we 
discovered that Hengshui did not report the electricity used to process 
crude glycerine, a by-product, into refined glycerine. We added the 
amount of electricity used to process crude glycerine into refined 
glycerine to the electricity usage factor reported to the Department in 
Hengshui's questionnaire response. At verification, we also could not 
substantiate, with source documentation, the amount deducted for an 
electric sub-meter. Therefore, we did not allow the deduction of the 
amount of electricity recorded at the sub-meter from the total amount 
of electricity used to produce sebacic acid. As this subject involves 
proprietary information, please see the Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of the 1996/1997 Review for sebacic acid for a more 
complete discussion of this issue.
    For the value of export packing (plastic bags and woven bags), the 
Department used the value of imports into India during April 1995 
through February 1996, as reported in the Monthly Statistics of Foreign 
Trade of India, Volume II, and adjusted these values for inflation. We 
did not use values from respondents because there was no supporting 
documentation. Also, we adjusted this value to account for freight 
expenses.
    For foreign inland freight, the Department relied upon the trucking 
freight rates reported in The Times of India, April 20, 1994, which 
source was also applied to Polyvinyl Alcohol (60 FR 52647, October 10, 
1995), and the value was adjusted for inflation. The rail freight rates 
used, which were adjusted for inflation, were reported to the 
Department in a December 1989 embassy cable for the final results of 
the antidumping administrative review for Shop Towels of Cotton from 
the PRC (56 FR 60969).
    For ocean freight, we used the surrogate value used in the last 
administrative review. This value, provided by the Federal Maritime 
Commission on January 24, 1997, includes delivery destination charges 
and fuel adjustment charges and was not adjusted because the value was 
within the POR. For Tianjin, we used actual market economy shipping 
costs as reported by respondents where applicable.
    To calculate the expense for marine insurance, we used information 
from a publicly summarized version of the questionnaire response for 
the investigation of sales of less than fair value of Sulphur Vat Dyes 
from India (62 FR 42758). The marine insurance rate reported in the 
public version of the October 8, 1992 response was adjusted for 
inflation to reflect marine insurance charges during the POR.
    For foreign brokerage and handling charges, we used information 
from publicly available data for foreign brokerage and handling 
reported for the investigation for Sulphur Vat Dyes, (62 FR 42758) 
adjusted for inflation.
    Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous 
administrative review for sebacic acid, we have determined that fatty 
acid, glycerine, and castor seed cake (when castor oil is self-
produced) are by-products. Therefore, as by-products, we subtracted the 
sales revenue of fatty acid, glycerine, and, where applicable, castor 
seed cake, from the estimated production costs of sebacic acid. This 
treatment of by-products is also consistent with generally accepted 
accounting principles. (See Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis 
(1991) at pages 539-544).
    To value fatty acid, we used publicly available published 
information from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 
(Monthly Statistics) for the period April 1995 through February 1996 
and adjusted this data for inflation.
    To value glycerine, we used the average price for glycerine (IW and 
CP) in the publication Chemical Weekly from January 1997 from the

[[Page 17371]]

respondents. We adjusted these values to include freight expenses 
incurred from the suppliers to the respondents' sebacic acid 
manufacturing facilities.
    We also allocated a by-product credit for glycerine to the 
production cost for the co-product capryl alcohol. We deducted a by-
product credit for glycerine from both sebacic acid and capryl alcohol 
based on the ratio of the value of sebacic acid to the total value of 
both sebacic acid and capryl alcohol.
    Consistent with the methodology employed in the previous 
administrative review, we have determined that capryl alcohol is a co-
product. Therefore, we have allocated the factor inputs, based on the 
relative quantity of output of this product and sebacic acid. 
Additionally, we have used the production times necessary to complete 
each production stage of sebacic acid as a basis for allocating the 
amount of labor, energy usage, and factory overhead among the co-
product(s). This treatment of co-products is consistent with generally 
accepted accounting principles. (See Cost Accounting: A Managerial 
Emphasis (1991) at pages 528-533).
    To value capryl alcohol, we used publicly available published 
information for octanol from Chemical Weekly from June 1997 and 
adjusted the price for sales and excise taxes. We used the Chemical 
Weekly octanol value from June 1997. Also, respondents submitted value 
data from the Chemical Marketing Reporter (U.S.). Octanol is used as 
the surrogate value for capryl alcohol because, in a letter submitted 
by respondents in attachment four of their December 4, 1997 submission 
concerning surrogate values, the editor of Chemical Weekly states that 
the reference to octanol in the journal refers to the more common 2-
octanol (2-ethylhexanol). We adjusted these values to exclude taxes and 
to include freight expenses incurred from the suppliers to the 
respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
    To value castor seed cake, we used the value for castor seed from 
The Economic Times (Bombay) submitted by respondents, and adjusted this 
value for inflation.
    For selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we used 
information from the same source we used for factory overhead. We 
summed the values which comprised the components of SG&A and divided 
that figure by the same cost of manufacturing figure used to determine 
factory overhead, to arrive at an SG&A rate of 21.67 percent. We 
multiplied this SG&A rate of 21.67 percent by the total cost of 
manufacture, which includes factory overhead.
    For the calculation of profit, we used information from the April 
1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin. We divided the reported before-tax 
profit for the ``processing and manufacture: metals, chemicals, and 
products thereof'' category by the sum of those components pertaining 
to the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A to calculate a profit rate of 
5.24 percent. We multiplied this profit rate of 5.24 percent by the sum 
of the total cost of manufacture and SG&A.

Preliminary Results of Review

    For Jiangsu, which failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we have not granted a separate rate and the country-wide 
rate will apply to all sales.
    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Margin  
                             Manufacturer/exporter                                   Time period      (percent) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinochem Jiangsu I/E Corp......................................................     7/01/96-6/30/97      243.40%
Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp.....................................................     7/01/96-6/30/97         3.53
Sinochem International Chemicals Corp..........................................     7/01/96-6/30/97         0.35
Guangdong Chemicals I/E Corp...................................................     7/01/96-6/30/97        16.35
Country-Wide Rate..............................................................     7/01/96-6/30/97       243.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit written 
comments (case briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited 
to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 
days after the date of publication. The Department will publish a 
notice of final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.
    Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all entries. We will calculate an importer-specific ad 
valorem duty assessment rate for each class or kind of merchandise 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value 
of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the 
POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping 
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory 
NV and statutory EP, by the total statutory EP value of the sales 
compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference between EP 
and customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR.)
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the 
reviewed companies named above which have separate rates (SICC, 
Tianjin, and Guangdong), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for 
those firms established in the final results of this administrative 
review; (2) for companies previously found to be entitled to a separate 
rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rates will 
be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) 
for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit 
rates will be the PRC country-wide rate indicated above; and (4) 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 rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

[[Page 17372]]

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 2, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-9436 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P