[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 69 (Monday, April 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18963-18968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-847]


Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Partial 
Rescission of Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's 
Republic of China in response to requests by the petitioner, FMC 
Corporation, and the following two manufacturers/exporters of the 
subject merchandise: Shanghai Ai Jian Import and Export Corporation, 
and Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import and Export Corporation. In addition to 
these two respondents, the petitioner also requested a review of 
Guangdong Petroleum Chemical Import & Export Trade Corporation. The 
period of review is July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999.
    We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have 
been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference 
between the export price and the normal value. We also have 
preliminarily determined that the review of Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi 
Import & Export Trade Corporation should be rescinded.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 2000.

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

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. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the 
Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 351 (April 1998).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 15, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC) covering the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 64 FR 
38181 (July 15, 1999).
    On July 31, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
petitioner requested an administrative review of Shanghai Ai Jian 
Import & Export Corporation (Ai Jian), Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import & 
Export Corporation (Wuxi), and Guangdong Petroleum Chemical Import & 
Export Trade Corporation (Guangdong Petroleum). We also received 
requests for a review from Ai Jian and Wuxi on July 31, 1998. We 
published a notice of initiation of this review on August 30, 1999. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 64 FR 47167 (August 30, 
1999).
    On September 8, 1999, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ai 
Jian, Wuxi, and Guangdong Petroleum. The Department received a response 
from Ai

[[Page 18964]]

Jian in October 1999. In addition, the Department received a response 
from Shanghai Ai Jian Reagent Works (AJ Works) (producer for Ai Jian) 
in November 1999. On November 5, 1999, Wuxi notified the Department 
that it had not made any U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the 
period of review (POR). See the ``Partial Rescission of Administrative 
Review'' section of the notice below. Guangdong Petroleum did not 
respond to the Department's questionnaire.
    On November 25, 1999, we issued a letter to Guangdong Petroleum 
asking it to indicate whether it intended to participate in this 
administrative review. Guangdong Petroleum did not respond to this 
letter.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Ai Jian and AJ Works in 
January 2000, and received responses to these questionnaires in 
February 2000. In March 2000, we requested and received additional 
information from Ai Jian and AJ Works concerning chemical inputs and 
packing materials.
    In February 2000, Ai Jian and the petitioner submitted publicly 
available information and comments for consideration in valuing the 
factors of production. In March 2000, the parties submitted rebuttal 
comments.

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are persulfates, including 
ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for 
these persulfates are, respectively, (NH4) 2 
S2 O8, K2 S2 O8, 
and Na2 S2 O8. Ammonium and potassium 
persulfates are currently classified under subheading 2833.40.60 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium 
persulfate is classified under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Wuxi notified the Department that it had not made any U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise during the POR. Entry data provided by the Customs 
Service confirms that there were no POR entries from Wuxi of 
persulfates.
    Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, we 
preliminarily determine to rescind this review with respect to Wuxi. 
See Stainless Steel Bar From India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Partial 
Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 12209 (March 8, 2000).

Separate Rates

    It is the Department's 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), 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. With respect to evidence of a de facto absence of 
government control, the Department considers the following four 
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, 59 FR at 22587; see 
also Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    With respect to Ai Jian, for purposes of our final results for the 
period of review (POR) covering December 27, 1996 through June 30, 
1998, the Department determined that there was an absence of de jure 
and de facto government control of its export activities and determined 
that it warranted a company-specific dumping margin. See Persulfates 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 69494 (December 13, 1999) (Persulfates 
First Review). For purposes of this POR, Ai Jian has 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 Persulfates First Review and continues to demonstrate an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
its exports, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide.
    With respect to Guangdong Petroleum, which did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that this 
company does 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 Guangdong Petroleum is subject to the country-wide rate 
for this case because it failed to demonstrate an absence of government 
control.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    On September 8, 1999, the Department sent Guangdong Petroleum a 
questionnaire and cover letter, explaining the review procedures, by 
air mail through FedEx International Airway Bill. A response to the 
questionnaire, which covered exports to the United States for the 
period of review, was due by October 29, 1999. We did not receive 
responses by the due date. On November 25, 1999, we sent a follow-up 
letter regarding the past due date for the questionnaire responses and 
noting the necessity of relying on facts available. Because we have 
received no responses and have not been contacted by this respondent, 
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 Guangdong Petroleum, which is part of the PRC entity (see 
``Separate Rates'' section above), has failed to respond to the 
original questionnaire and has 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 for the PRC-wide rate. See, e.g., Sulfanilic Acid From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

[[Page 18965]]

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.'' Guangdong Petroleum failed to respond to our 
requests for information, thereby failing to comply with this provision 
of the statute. Therefore, we determine this respondent failed to 
cooperate to the best of its 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 Guangdong Petroleum and all other exporters subject to the 
PRC-wide rate the petition rate of 119.02 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 Guangdong 
Petroleum could have demonstrated that its actual dumping margin was 
lower than the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV investigation, it 
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 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. Although the petition rate 
of 119.02 percent constitutes secondary information, the information 
has already been corroborated in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from 
The People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997). With 
respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will 
consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a 
margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that 
the selected margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the 
Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate 
margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the 
Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best 
information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does 
not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. 
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department 
will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated); see also 
Borden Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1246-48 (CIT 1998) 
(the Department may not use an uncorroborated petition margin that is 
high when compared to calculated margins for the period of review). 
None of these unusual circumstances are present here; nor have we any 
other reason to believe that application of the rate as adverse facts 
available would be inappropriate for the PRC-wide rate. Thus, the 
119.02 percent margin does have relevance. Accordingly, we have used 
the petition rate from LTFV investigation, 119.02 percent, because 
there is no evidence on the record indicating that the selected margin 
is not appropriate as adverse facts available.

Export Price

    For Ai Jian, we calculated export price (EP) in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior 
to importation and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not 
otherwise warranted, based on the facts of record. We calculated EP 
based on packed, CIF U.S. port, or FOB PRC port, prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States, as appropriate. We made deductions 
from the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, 
foreign brokerage and handling, marine insurance, and ocean freight. 
With respect to ocean freight, although Ai Jian asserted that it used 
market-economy carriers for shipments of persulfates, we could not 
establish, based on the submitted information, that the freight charges 
Ai Jian 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

[[Page 18966]]

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 constructed value 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 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 persulfates. For purposes of the 
last administrative review of this order, we found that India was a 
producer of persulfates based on information submitted by the 
respondents. See Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 64 FR 42912, 42914 (August 
6, 1999) (Persulfates First Review Preliminary Results). For purposes 
of this administrative review, we continue to find that India is a 
producer of persulfates based on information submitted by both the 
respondents and the petitioner. 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 
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 various surrogate values, see the 
Preliminary Results Factors Valuation Memorandum from the Team to the 
File, dated April 3, 2000 (Factors Memorandum). In accordance with this 
methodology, we valued the factors of production as follows:
    To value ammonium sulfate, caustic soda, and sulfuric acid, we used 
public information from the Indian publication Chemical Weekly, as 
provided by both the petitioner and the respondents in their February 
25, 2000 submissions. For caustic soda and sulphuric acid, because 
price quotes reported in the 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 
sulphuric acid used by respondents. For potassium sulfate and anhydrous 
ammonia, we relied on import prices contained in the January through 
August 1998 issues of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India 
(Monthly Statistics), as collectively provided by the petitioner and 
the respondents in their February 25, 2000 submissions. Where 
necessary, we adjusted the values reported in the Chemical Weekly to 
exclude sales and excise taxes. For those values not contemporaneous 
with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price 
indices (WPI) published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We 
made further adjustments to account for freight costs between the 
suppliers and AJ Works' manufacturing facilities.
    During the POR, AJ Works self-produced ammonium persulfates, which 
is a material input in the production of potassium and sodium 
persulfates. In order to value such ammonium persulfates, we calculated 
the sum of the materials, labor, and energy costs for ammonium 
persulfates based on the usage factors submitted by AJ Works on 
November 5, 1999, February 28, 2000, and March 15, 2000. Consistent 
with our methodology used in Persulfates First Review, we then applied 
this value to the reported consumption amounts of ammonium persulfates 
used in the production of potassium and sodium persulfates.
    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).
    For electricity, we relied upon public information from an August 
6, 1996, article in Business World to obtain an average price for 
electricity provided to industries in India. To value water we relied 
on public information reported in the October 1997 publication of the 
Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region. To value 
coal, we relied on import prices contained in the March 1998 issue of 
Monthly Statistics. We adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to 
the POR using the WPI published by the IMF. Additionally, we adjusted 
the value for coal to account for freight costs incurred between the 
suppliers and AJ Works.
    For the reported packing materials--polyethylene bags, woven bags, 
polyethylene sheet/film and liner, and fiberboard--we relied upon 
Indian import data from the January through August 1998 issues of 
Monthly Statistics. For paper bags and wood pallets, we relied upon 
Indian import data from the March 1998 issue of Monthly Statistics. We 
adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI 
published by the IMF. Additionally, we adjusted these values to account 
for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and AJ Works.
    To value truck freight, we used price quotes obtained by the 
Department from Indian truck freight companies in November 1999, and 
used recently in the investigation of bulk aspirin from the PRC. See 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 116, 118 
(January 3, 2000). Because the time period for this data (i.e., 
November 1999) is later than that of the POR, we adjusted the data to 
reflect POR values using the WPI published by the IMF. For ocean 
freight we used a price quote

[[Page 18967]]

from Maersk, Inc. This rate was recently used in the fourth 
administrative review of sebacic acid from the PRC. See Sebacic Acid 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 69503, 69507 (December 13, 1999).
    For marine insurance we used the June 1998 marine insurance data 
used in 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 new shipper review of stainless steel wire 
rod from India. See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews, 63 FR 48184, 48185 (September 9, 1998); Factors Memorandum at 
page 5. We adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using 
the WPI published by the IMF.
    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(SG&A), and profit, we relied on the financial statements of Calibre 
Chemicals Pvt. Limited (Calibre), an Indian producer of potassium 
persulfates and other chemicals, which were submitted by the petitioner 
in its February 25, 2000, submission, because this company is a 
producer of subject merchandise.
    The petitioner also submitted the financial statements of National 
Peroxide Limited (National Peroxide), and asserted that while the 
Department should value factory overhead and profit using Calibre's 
financial data, the Department should use National Peroxide's data to 
value SG&A. The petitioner maintains as it did in Persulfates First 
Review Final that because Calibre produces non-subject merchandise in 
addition to subject merchandise, its financial data is not 
representative of persulfates production. However, as we stated in 
Persulfates First Review Final, we find this approach to be 
inappropriate and unwarranted. SG&A expenses are not considered to be 
directly related to the production of merchandise, unlike factory 
overhead costs. In addition, while we recognize that Calibre's 
financial data may not mirror the actual experience of AJ Works, this 
does not render Calibre's data unreliable for purposes of calculating a 
surrogate SG&A ratio within the context of the Department's NME 
methodology. Finally, because a company's profit amount is a function 
of its total expenses, using Calibre's financial data for factory 
overhead and profit, then using National Peroxide's data for SG&A, as 
proposed by the petitioner, results in applying a profit ratio that 
bears no relationship to the overhead and SG&A ratios. Therefore, for 
purposes of these preliminary results, we have continued to rely upon 
Calibre's financials for these values. See Persulfates First Review 
Final, 64 FR at 69499-500.
    Consistent with our methodology used in Persulfates First Review, 
we calculated factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw 
material costs for subject merchandise, as opposed to calculating 
factory overhead as a percentage of total materials, labor, and energy 
costs for all products. See Persulfates First Review, 64 FR at 69498-
99; Factors Memorandum at page 6. We also reclassified certain 
depreciation expenses from Calibre's financial statements as SG&A 
expenses. See Persulfates First Review, 64 FR at 69501. We removed from 
the profit calculation the excise duties and sales taxes. See 
Persulfates First Review Preliminary Results, 64 FR at 42915.

Preliminary Results of the Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation.................       0.82
PRC-Wide Rate................................................     119.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request a hearing within 30 days of 
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 the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not 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. The Department will 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service upon completion of this review. The final results of this 
review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on 
entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits 
of estimated duties. For assessment purposes, we do not have the 
information to calculate an estimated entered value. Accordingly, we 
have calculated importer specific duty assessment rates for the 
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 
sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 
This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that particular 
importer made during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this antidumping duty 
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) the 
cash deposit rate for Ai Jian will be that established in the final 
results of this administrative review; (2) the rate will continue to be 
7.18 percent for Wuxi, which we determined to be entitled to a separate 
rate in the previous review but which did not have shipments or entries 
to the United States during this POR (this is the rate which currently 
applies to this company); (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC 
exporters, including Guangdong Petroleum, will be 119.02 percent, the 
PRC-wide rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation; 
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 requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice 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

[[Page 18968]]

antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double 
antidumping duties.
    This administrative review 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. 00-8822 Filed 4-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P