[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 69 (Monday, April 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18968-18972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8821]


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

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 is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the People's 
Republic of China in response to requests from the petitioner, Arizona 
Chemical Company, and the following two respondents: Tianjin Chemicals 
Import and Export Corporation and Guangdong Chemicals Import and Export 
Corporation. In addition to these two respondents, the petitioner also 
requested a review of Sinochem Jiangsu Import and Export Corporation 
and Sinochem International Chemicals Company. This review covers four 
exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review is July 1, 
1998, through June 30, 1999.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal 
value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on entries subject to this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Nunno or Christopher Priddy, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-0783 or (202) 482-1130, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective 
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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 15, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
at 64 FR 38181 a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative 
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period July 1, 1998, 
through June 30, 1999.
    On July 22, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
petitioner requested that we conduct an administrative review of 
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). On July 26, 1999, Tianjin and 
Guangdong also requested that we conduct an administrative review. We 
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review on August 30, 1999, at 64 FR 47167. On September 
9, 1999, we issued questionnaires to the four respondents. Tianjin and 
Guangdong submitted responses to sections A, C, and D of the 
antidumping questionnaire on November 8, 1999. The Department issued 
its supplemental questionnaires on January 19, 2000, and received 
responses to the questionnaires in February 2000. Both Guangdong and 
Tianjin submitted additional information clarifying their reported 
sales and factors of production data in March 2000. SICC and Jiangsu 
did not respond to the Department's questionnaire.
    On December 14, 1999, the Department invited interested parties to 
provide publicly available information (PAI) for valuing the factors of 
production and for surrogate country selection. We received responses 
from the petitioner on January 24, 2000. The respondents did not submit 
PAI information for purposes of the preliminary results.
    The Department is conducting this 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 (1000 ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), 
and Nylon Grade (500 ppm 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 
2917.13.00.30 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.

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
the merchandise subject to review in non-market-economy (NME) 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), and 
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

[[Page 18969]]

enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
With respect to evidence of a de facto absence of government control, 
the Department considers the following factors: (1) Whether the 
respondent sets its own export prices independent from the government 
and other exporters; (2) whether the respondent can retain the proceeds 
from its export sales; (3) whether the respondent has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts; and (4) whether the respondent has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See 
Silicon Carbide at 22587 and Sparklers at 20589.
    With respect to Tianjin and Guangdong, in our final results for the 
period of review (POR) covering July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998, 
the Department determined there was both 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, 64 FR 69503 (December 13, 
1999) (Sebacic Acid Fourth Review). For this review, both 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 results in the Sebacic Acid Fourth Review 
and continues to demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto 
government control with respect to their exports in accordance with the 
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
    With respect to SICC and Jiangsu, which did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that these 
companies do not merit a separate rate. The Department assigns a single 
rate to companies in a non-market economy, unless an exporter 
demonstrates an absence of government control. We preliminarily 
determine that SICC and Jiangsu are subject to the country-wide rate 
for this case because they failed to demonstrate an absence of 
government control.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available for Non-Responding Companies

    On September 9, 1999, the Department sent antidumping 
questionnaires to SICC and Jiangsu. SICC and Jiangsu did not respond to 
the questionnaire. Because we have received no responses, we determine 
that the use of facts available is appropriate.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an interested party 
or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information 
by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form 
and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 
782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.''
    Because SICC and Jiangsu, which are part of the PRC entity (see 
``Separate Rates'' section above), have failed to respond to the 
original questionnaire and have refused to participate in this 
administrative review, we find that, in accordance with sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the use of total facts available is 
appropriate. See, e.g., Sulfanilic Acid From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 
13366, 13367 (March 13, 2000).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``an affirmative finding of bad 
faith on the part of the respondent is not required before the 
Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997) 
(Final Rule). Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to 
use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition, 
the final determination from the less than fair value (LTFV) 
investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record.
    Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a responsibility 
not only to notify the Department if it is unable to provide requested 
information, but also to provide a ``full explanation and suggested 
alternative forms.'' SICC and Jiangsu failed to respond to our requests 
for information, thereby failing to comply with this provision of the 
statute. Therefore, we determine these respondents failed to cooperate 
to the best of their ability, making the use of an adverse inference 
appropriate. In this proceeding, in accordance with Department 
practice, as adverse facts available we have preliminarily assigned 
SICC, Jiangsu and all other exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate, the 
petition rate of 243.40 percent, which is the PRC-wide rate established 
in the LTFV investigation, and the highest dumping margin determined in 
any segment of this proceeding. See Fresh Garlic From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 39115 (July 21, 1999). The Department's 
practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources 
of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse 
``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Static Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department also 
considers the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of 
cooperation in selecting a rate. See Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, 
from Japan; Notice of Final Results and Partial Recission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 60472, 60477 (November 
10, 1997). It is reasonable to assume that if SICC and Jiangsu could 
have demonstrated that their actual dumping margins were lower than the 
PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation, they would have 
participated in this review and attempted to do so.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
described in the SAA as ``[i]nformation derived from the petition that 
gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The 
SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information 
used has probative

[[Page 18970]]

value. See id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information to be used. To examine the reliability of margins in 
the petition, we examine whether, based on available evidence, those 
margins reasonably reflect a level of dumping that may have occurred 
during the period of investigation by any firm, including those that 
did not provide us with usable information. This generally consists of 
examining, to the extent practicable, whether the significant elements 
used to derive the petition margins, or the resulting margins, are 
supported by independent sources. With respect to the relevance aspect 
of corroboration, 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 may not be relevant, the Department will attempt to find a more 
appropriate basis for facts available. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers 
from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded 
the highest margin as best information available because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin).
    For the initiation of the investigation, the petitioner alleged a 
dumping margin of 243.40 percent. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation; Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China, 58 FR 
43339, 43340 (August 16, 1993). In the petition, the U.S. price was 
based on March 1993 price quotations obtained for sebacic acid from the 
PRC. The factors of production were valued, where possible, using 
publicly available published information for India. Where Indian values 
were not available, the petitioners used data from Pakistan, an 
appropriate surrogate country at a comparable level of economic 
development to the PRC. The petitioner relied on its own costs for two 
factors, steam and factory overhead. If we adjust the petitioner's 
normal value calculation by excluding steam cost and recalculate 
factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses and 
profit using the statistics in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin 
(1992-1993), a publicly available and independent source used in other 
investigations of imports from the PRC, the adjusted normal value is 
comparable to the value calculated in the petition.
    We find, therefore, for the purpose of these preliminary results 
that the PRC-wide margin established in the LTFV investigation is 
reliable. As there is no information on the record of this review that 
demonstrates that the rate selected is not an appropriate adverse facts 
available rate for the PRC-wide rate, we determine that this rate has 
probative value and, therefore, is an appropriate basis for facts 
otherwise available.

Export Price

    For Tianjin and Guangdong, we calculated export price (EP), in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States prior to importation and because constructed export price (CEP) 
methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. 
We calculated EP based on packed CIF prices to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions 
from the starting price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 
and handling, ocean freight, and marine insurance. With respect to 
ocean freight, although both respondents asserted that they used 
market-economy carriers for shipments of sebacic acid, we could not 
establish, based on the submitted information, that the freight charges 
the respondents paid reflect prices set by market-economy carriers. 
Accordingly, for ocean freight and other movement expenses, we based 
the charges on surrogate values. See ``Normal Value'' section for 
further discussion.

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 (CV) 
under section 773(a) of the Act.
    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all 
previous antidumping cases. 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. 
Furthermore, none of the parties to this proceeding has contested the 
PRC's NME status. 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 surrogate country.
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408 direct us to select 
a surrogate country that is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of 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 at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC. See ``Memorandum from 
Director, Office of Policy, to Office Director, AD/CVD Group I, Office 
2,'' dated November 8, 1999.
    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act also requires that, to the extent 
possible, the Department use a surrogate country that is a significant 
producer of merchandise comparable to sebacic acid. We determined in 
prior reviews of this order that India was a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise (i.e., oxalic acid). See Sebacic Acid Fourth 
Review. For this review, we find that India was a producer of oxalic 
acid during the POR based on the Customs Service import data. We find 
that India fulfills both statutory requirements for use as the 
surrogate country and continue to use India as the surrogate country in 
this administrative review. We have used publicly available information 
relating to India, unless otherwise noted, to value the various factors 
of production.
    For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of production 
in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. 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. 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 either within the 
POR or most contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) 
tax-exclusive. For a more detailed explanation of the methodology used 
in calculating the various surrogate values, see ``Preliminary Results 
Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum,'' dated April 3, 2000. We 
adjusted all values not contemporaneous to the POR to reflect inflation 
up to the POR using wholesale price indices published by the 
International Monetary Fund. In accordance with this methodology, we 
valued the factors of production as follows:
    During the POR, both Hengshui Dongfeng Chemical Factory (Hengshui) 
and Handan Fuyang Sebacic Acid Factory (Handan) purchased castor oil

[[Page 18971]]

from market economy suppliers and paid for the castor oil in a market 
economy currency. Hengshui also purchased castor oil from NME 
suppliers. For all purchases of castor oil, including castor oil 
Hengshui purchased from NME suppliers, we used the actual price the 
factories paid to the market economy suppliers to calculate the 
factors-based NV in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).
    We valued castor seed using 1998 price data from the Solvent 
Extractors Association of India provided by the petitioner in its 
January 24, 2000, submission. For macropore resin, we used the value 
for activated carbon because the Department determined in previous 
reviews that the valuations of these inputs are interchangeable. See 
Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 17367, 17369 (April 9, 
1998) (Sebacic Acid Third Review). Consistent with our methodology used 
in the fourth review of this proceeding, we valued activated carbon 
using public price quotes obtained from Indian companies. See Sebacic 
Acid Fourth Review at 69506. For caustic soda, cresol, phenol, sulfuric 
acid, and zinc oxide, we used published market prices reported in the 
Chemical Weekly. For caustic soda and sulfuric acid, because price 
quotes reported in Chemical Weekly are for chemicals with a 100 percent 
concentration level, we made chemical purity adjustments according to 
the particular concentration levels of caustic soda and sulfuric acid 
used by the respondents. For sodium chloride (also referred to as 
sodium chlorite or vacuum salt), we used Indian import values from the 
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (Monthly Statistics) 
for the period April 1997 through March 1998.
    Where appropriate, we adjusted the values reported in the Chemical 
Weekly to exclude sales and excise taxes. We made further adjustments 
to account for freight costs between the suppliers' buildings and the 
respondents' sebacic acid manufacturing facilities.
    In accordance with our practice, for inputs for which we used CIF 
import values from India, we calculated a surrogate freight cost using 
the shorter of the reported distances either from the closest PRC ocean 
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 
61964, 61977 (November 20, 1997) and the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 
1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value electricity, we used the average rate applicable to medium 
industrial users throughout India as obtained from the ``Our India'' 
website (http://www.ourindia.com/power.htm) compiled by the Indian 
Industrial and Management Services and submitted by the petitioner on 
January 24, 2000. We based the value of steam coal on April 1997 
through March 1998 import values from the Monthly Statistics.
    We based our calculation of factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit on data contained in the 
April 1995 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the Indian metals and 
chemicals industries. To value factory overhead, we summed those 
components which pertain to overhead expenses and divided them by the 
sum of those components pertaining to the cost of manufacturing. We 
multiplied this factory overhead rate by the cost of manufacturing 
divided by one minus the factory overhead rate. Using the same source, 
we also calculated the SG&A rate as a percentage of the cost of 
manufacturing. We calculated profit as a percentage of the cost of 
production (i.e., materials, energy, labor, factory overhead, and 
SG&A).
    To value plastic and woven bags, we used import values from the 
Monthly Statistics. For jumbo bag valuation, we used a value from 
Monthly Statistics as found in the Department's Index of Factor Values 
for Use in Antidumping Duty Investigations Involving Products from the 
People's Republic of China (Index of Factor Values) found on the 
Department's website (http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/factorv/prc). 
Additionally, we adjusted these values to account for freight costs 
incurred between the suppliers and sebacic acid producers.
    In valuing foreign inland trucking freight, we relied upon price 
quotes obtained by the Department from Indian truck freight companies 
in November 1999; for foreign inland rail rates the Department relied 
upon data from Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 13401 (March 18, 1999). To value ocean freight, we used a 
price quote from Maersk Inc., for merchandise comparable to sebacic 
acid (i.e., oxalic acid). For marine insurance, we used the June 1998 
marine insurance data collected for Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of 1996-97 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 
Shipper Review and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 63 FR 
63842 (November 17, 1998). For foreign brokerage and handling expenses, 
we used public information reported in the antidumping duty 
investigations of sulfur dyes and stainless steel wire rod from India, 
respectively. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sulfur Dyes, Including Vat Dyes from India , 58 FR 11835 (March 1, 
1993); Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 63 FR 48184 
(September 9, 1998).
    Consistent with the methodology employed in Sebacic Acid Fourth 
Review, we have determined that fatty acid, glycerine, and castor seed 
cake (when castor oil is self-produced) are by-products. Because they 
are 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 and glycerine, we used prices published in Chemical Weekly. 
We valued castor seed cake using market prices quoted in The Economic 
Times of India (Mumbai) for certain months in 1997.
    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 sebacic acid 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 and 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, consistent with our 
methodology from

[[Page 18972]]

the previous administrative review, we used POR market prices reported 
in the Chemical Weekly and adjusted the prices for sales and excise 
taxes.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist 
for the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Chemicals I/E Corp..................................        0.82
Guangdong Chemicals I/E Corp................................        7.51
PRC-Wide Rate...............................................      243.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of the 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of the publication of 
this notice or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of publication. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 
35 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit case briefs 
or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the 
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 
regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will subsequently issue a notice of the final 
results of this administrative review which will include the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs no later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have 
calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined 
sales to the total entered value of the examined sales. This rate will 
be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made 
during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to the Customs Service.
    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 by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the reviewed 
companies named above which have separate rates (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.

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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 3, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8821 Filed 4-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P