[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37498-37500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17645]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-007]


Barium Chloride 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 barium chloride from the People's Republic of 
China.

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

SUMMARY: On November 30, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published a notice of initiation of administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on barium chloride from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) covering the period October 1, 1997 through 
September 30, 1998.
    For all companies named in this review, we are basing our 
preliminary results on ``facts available'' (FA). If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we 
will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping 
duties on entries during the period.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nova J. Daly or Thomas Futtner, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group II, Office Four, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and

[[Page 37499]]

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0989, and 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions as of 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1998).

Period of Review

    The period of review (POR) is October 1, 1997 through September 30, 
1998.

Scope of the Review

    The imports covered by this review are shipments of barium 
chloride, a chemical compound having the formulas BaCl2 or BaCl2-2H2O, 
currently classifiable under item number 2827.38.00 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and for Customs purposes, the written description remains 
dispositive.

Background

    On October 17, 1984, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (49 FR 40635) the antidumping duty 
order on barium chloride from the PRC. On October 9, 1998, the 
Department published in the Federal Register (63 FR 54440) a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order. In response to our notice of opportunity to request 
administrative review for this POR, the petitioner, Chemical Products 
Corporation (``CPC''), requested, by letter dated October 22, 1998, 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the following 
Chinese manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise: Hebei Xinji 
Chemical Plant (Hebei); Hengnan Chemical Factory (Hengnan); Kunghan 
Chemical Factory (Kunghan); Linshu Chemical Factory (Linshu); Qingdao 
Red Star Chemical Group Co. (Red Star); Sichuan Emeishan Salt Chemical 
Industry Group Company, Ltd. (Sichuan); Sinochem (U.S.A.)(Sinochem); 
Tangshan Chemical Factory (Tangshan); Tianjin Chemical Industry 
Corporation (Tianjin); Tianjin Bohai Chemical United Import/Export 
Company (Tianjin Bohai); and Zhangjiaba Salt Chemical Plant 
(Zhangjiaba). (See Letter from CPC to the Department, October 22, 
1998). One of these companies, Sinochem, was previously determined by 
the Department to be entitled to a separate rate.
    On November 30, 1998, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of an administrative review on the producers/exporters named 
by the petitioner in its review request (63 FR 65748).
    The Department sent questionnaires to all of the companies for 
which we had addresses on January 28, 1999. Also on January 28, 1999, 
we sent a letter to Mr. Zhang Yuqing of the Ministry of Foreign Trade 
and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), enclosing copies of the 
questionnaire.

Separate Rates

    Although Sinochem had been granted separate rate status in a prior 
administrative review, in this review, like the other named companies, 
Sinochem failed to respond or show that it remained entitled to a 
separate rate. Consequently, we have considered Sinochem to be part of 
the PRC-wide entity for purposes of this administrative review. In 
addition, the other companies named in the request for review also did 
not request a separate rate. Exporters which have not established they 
are entitled to a separate rate are presumed to be under common 
government control and, therefore, should receive a single PRC-wide 
rate. Because none of the companies for which an administrative review 
has been requested for this POR has demonstrated that it is entitled to 
a separate rate, all are deemed to be included in the PRC-wide entity, 
and will receive a common margin in this review.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use FA if 
necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping 
proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act mandates that the 
Department use FA where an interested party or any other person: (A) 
Withholds information requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide 
requested information by the requested date or in the form and manner 
requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding; or (D) 
provides information that cannot be verified. In this case, none of the 
named respondents responded to the Department's questionnaire. Where 
the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a respondent in 
an administrative review on FA because that respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability, section 776(b)(2) 
authorizes the Department to use an inference adverse to the interests 
of that respondent in choosing FA. Section 776(b)(2) also authorizes 
the Department to use as adverse FA information derived from the 
petition, the final determination in the investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
    In this administrative review, none of the companies responded to 
our questionnaire. Therefore, we lack information with which to 
calculate a margin and, consequently, have determined we must base the 
margin for the PRC-wide entity on FA.
    As noted above, none of the companies named in the notice of 
initiation in this review responded. Therefore, we find that the PRC-
wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. 
Consequently, we have preliminarily decided to use adverse FA with 
respect to the PRC-wide entity in accordance with section 776(b) of the 
Act.
    For the preliminary results of this review, we determine that it is 
appropriate to use, as adverse FA for the PRC-wide rate, the highest 
rate from this or previous segments of the proceeding. In this case, we 
have used Sinochem's rate of 60.84 percent from Barium Chloride From 
the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 57 FR 29467 (July 2, 1992) (1990-91 Final 
Results).
    Information from prior segments of a proceeding constitutes 
secondary information. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 
(1994)(SAA), provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See SAA at 870.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for calculated 
margins is an administrative determination. Thus, in an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as adverse FA a calculated

[[Page 37500]]

dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse FA, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
60 FR 49567, 49568 (September 26, 1995) (the Department disregarded the 
highest margin as best information available because that margin was 
based on an extraordinarily high business expense resulting from 
uncharacteristic investment activities, which resulted in the high 
margin).
    In the absence of information on the administrative record that 
application of this 60.84 percent rate would be inappropriate, that the 
margin is not relevant, or that leads us to re-examine this rate as 
adverse FA in the instant review, we find the margin reliable and 
relevant. Therefore, we have satisfied the corroboration requirements 
under section 776(c) of the Act and have applied, as FA, the 60.84 
percent margin from the 1990-91 Final Results.
    Accordingly, we are applying a single dumping rate--the highest 
rate established in any segment of this proceeding--to all exporters in 
the PRC. The weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
               Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin
                                                              percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide rate..............................................        60.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any 
calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results 
within 5 days of the date of publication of this notice. See section 
351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the publication date 
of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. See sections 351.309 and 351.310 of the Department's 
regulations. 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, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Duty Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the final results in this administrative review, 
the Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue 
assessment instructions to Customs based on the dumping rate stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
Customs.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of barium chloride from the PRC 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) The cash deposit rate 
for all Chinese exporters will be the rate established in the final 
results of this review; and (2) for non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to their PRC suppliers. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results 
of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure 
to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's 
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the 
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. section 1675(a)(1)), section 
777(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. section 1677f(i)), and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: July 2, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-17645 Filed 7-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P