[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18439-18444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8660]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-847]


Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty 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 Shanghai Ai Jian Import and Export Corporation, an 
exporter of the subject merchandise. In addition to this respondent, 
the petitioner also requested a review of Sinochem Jiangsu Wuxi Import 
and Export Corporation. The period of review is July 1, 1999, through 
June 30, 2000.
    We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have 
been made below normal value for only one of the two respondents. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties only on entries subject to this review by this 
exporter.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2001.

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, NW., Washington, DC 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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 
the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 
CFR part 351 (2000).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 20, 2000, 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, 1999 through June 30, 2000. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 65 FR 
45035 (July 20, 2000).
    On July 31, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
petitioner, FMC Corporation, requested an administrative review of 
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation (Ai Jian) and Sinochem 
Jiangsu Wuxi Import & Export Corporation (Wuxi). We also received a 
request for a review from Ai Jian on July 31, 2000. We published a 
notice of initiation of this review on September 6, 2000. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 65 FR 53980 (Sept. 6, 
2000).
    On August 22, 2000, we issued antidumping questionnaires to Ai Jian 
and Wuxi. The Department received a response from Ai Jian on October 
13, 2000. In addition, the Department received a response from Shanghai 
Ai Jian Reagent Works (AJ Works) (i.e., the producer who supplied the 
subject merchandise exported by Ai Jian) on October 13, 2000. Wuxi did 
not respond to the Department's questionnaire.
    On October 16, 2000, we issued a letter to Wuxi asking it to 
indicate whether it intended to participate in this administrative 
review. On October 23, 2000, Wuxi responded via facsimile indicating 
that it did not intend to participate.
    We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Ai Jian and AJ Works on 
November 28, 2000.
    On December 1, 2000, Ai Jian and the petitioner submitted publicly 
available information for consideration in valuing the factors of 
production. On December 8, 2000, the parties submitted rebuttal 
comments.
    On January 19, 2001, Ai Jian and AJ Works submitted responses to 
the supplemental questionnaire.
    We requested additional information concerning packing materials 
from AJ Works on February 7, 2000. AJ Works responded to our request on 
February 26, 2000.

[[Page 18440]]

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)2S2O8, 
K2S2O8, and 
Na2S2O8. Ammonium and potassium 
persulfates are currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.60 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium 
persulfate is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

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 
independently 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 covering 
the period of review (POR) July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, 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 and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 46691, 
46692 (July 31, 2000) (Persulfates Second Review Final). 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 
Second Review Final and continues to demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to Ai Jian's 
exports, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and 
Silicon Carbide.
    With respect to Wuxi, 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 Wuxi 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 August 22, 2000, the Department sent Wuxi 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 POR, was due by October 9, 
2000. We did not receive responses by the due date. On October 16, 
2000, we sent a follow-up letter regarding the past due date for the 
questionnaire responses and noting the possibility of relying on facts 
available. Wuxi replied to this letter indicating that it does not 
intend to participate in this administrative review. Accordingly, we 
determine that the use of facts available is appropriate because we 
have not received a response to the questionnaire.
    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 of the Act; (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) of the Act, the administering 
authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this 
title.''
    Because Wuxi, which is part of the PRC entity (see the ``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 Administrative Review, 65 FR 
13366, 13367 (Mar. 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.'' Wuxi failed to respond to our questionnaire, 
thereby failing to comply with this provision of the statute. 
Therefore, we determine that 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 
Wuxi and all

[[Page 18441]]

other exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate the rate of 119.02 
percent, which is the current 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), unchanged in the Department's final 
results at 65 FR 33295 (May 23, 2000). 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 (Feb. 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 Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 60472, 60477 (Nov. 10, 
1997). It is reasonable to assume that if Wuxi 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 and this rate 
is currently applicable to all PRC exporters that do not have separate 
rates. Thus, we find that it is reliable. 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 (Feb. 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 POR). 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. Moreover, the rate used is the 
currently applicable PRC-wide rate. Thus, the 119.02 percent margin 
does have relevance. Accordingly, we have used the petition rate from 
the 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 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 ocean freight services 
which were provided by market economy suppliers. We also deducted from 
the starting price, where appropriate, an amount for foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and marine insurance. As these 
movement services were provided by NME suppliers, we valued them using 
Indian rates. For further discussion of our use of surrogate data in an 
NME proceeding, as well as selection of India as the appropriate 
surrogate country, see the ``Normal Value'' section of this notice, 
below.
    For foreign inland freight we used price quotes obtained by the 
Department from Indian truck freight companies in November 1999. These 
price quotes were used in Persulfates Second Review Final, and were 
also used in the investigation of bulk aspirin from the PRC. See 
Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review, 65 FR 18963, 18966 (Apr. 10, 2000) (Persulfates 
Second Review Preliminary Results), followed in Persulfates Second 
Review Final; Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
116, 118 (Jan. 3, 2000). 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 (Sept. 9, 1998); the 
``Preliminary Results Factors Valuation Memorandum from the Team to the 
File,'' dated April 2, 2001, at page 6 (Factors Memorandum). With 
respect to marine insurance, Ai Jian asserted that it used a market-
economy supplier for its shipments of persulfates. However, based on 
the submitted information, we could not establish that the insurance 
charges Ai Jian paid reflect prices set by market-economy carriers. Due 
to the proprietary nature of the facts underlying our analysis, we 
cannot discuss them in this forum. For further discussion, see the 
April 2, 2001, memorandum from the team to the file entitled ``U.S. 
Price and Factors of Production Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results.'' Therefore, in accordance with our practice, we based the 
marine insurance charges on surrogate values. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Non-
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's Republic of China, 65 
FR 19873

[[Page 18442]]

(Apr. 13, 2000) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 3; and 
Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 49537 (Aug. 14, 2000) and 
accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 8. Accordingly, we valued 
marine insurance using the June 1998 marine insurance data used in 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 1998-1999 
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of 
Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 65 FR 41944, 41948 (July 7, 2000).\1\ 
We adjusted the values to reflect inflation up to the POR using the 
wholesale price indices (WPI) published by the International Monetary 
Fund (IMF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This was unchanged in the final results. See, Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1998-1999 
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 
2001). (TRBs 1998-1999 Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 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 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.\2\ See Memorandum from 
Jeffrey May to Louis Apple, dated October 5, 2000.
    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 
most recent segment of this proceeding, we found that India was a 
producer of persulfates based on information submitted by the 
respondents. See Persulfates Second Review Preliminary Results, 65 FR 
at 18966.\3\ For purposes of this administrative review, we continue to 
find that India is a significant producer of persulfates based on 
information submitted by both the respondent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We also find that Indonesia is at a level of economic 
development comparable to the PRC.
    \3\ This finding was unchanged in the final results. See 
Persulfates Second Review Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
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 respondent in their December 1, 
2000, submissions. 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 AJ Works. Where necessary, we adjusted the values reported in 
Chemical Weekly to exclude sales and excise taxes. For potassium 
sulfate and anhydrous ammonia, we relied on import prices contained in 
the March 1999 issue of Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of 
India (Monthly Statistics), as provided by the respondent in its 
December 1, 2000, submission. For those values not contemporaneous with 
the POR, we adjusted for inflation using the WPI published by the IMF.
    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 October 
13, 2000, and January 19, 2001. Consistent with our methodology used in 
Persulfates Second Review Final, we then applied this value to the 
reported consumption amounts of ammonium persulfates used in the 
production of potassium and sodium persulfates.
    We valued labor based on a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    For electricity, we derived a surrogate value based on 1998/1999 
electricity price data published by Tata Energy Research Institute. 
These data were used in the antidumping duty administrative review of 
manganese metal from the PRC. See Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Manganese Metal from the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 15076 (Mar. 15, 2001) and 
accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 10. We adjusted the values 
to reflect inflation up to the POR using the electricity-specific price 
index published by the Reserve Bank of India.
    To value water, we relied on public information reported in the 
October 1997 publication of Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian and 
Pacific Region. To value coal, we relied on import prices contained in 
the March 1999 issue of Monthly Statistics. We adjusted the values to 
reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI published by the IMF.
    For the reported packing materials--polyethylene bags, woven bags, 
polyethylene sheet/film and liner, fiberboard, and paper bags--we 
relied upon Indian import data from the March 1999 issue of Monthly 
Statistics. For wood pallets, we relied upon Indonesian import data 
from the December 1998 issue of Monthly

[[Page 18443]]

Statistics because the submitted Indian data on this material were 
unreliable as a surrogate value. The data for wood pallets was 
submitted by the respondent in its December 8, 2000, submission, and 
used in the recently completed administrative review of tapered roller 
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC. See 
TRBs 1998-1999 Final Results, 66 FR at 1955 and accompanying decision 
memorandum at Comment 10. We adjusted the Indian rupee values to 
reflect inflation up to the POR using the WPI published by the IMF. We 
also adjusted the U.S. dollar value for wood pallets to reflect 
inflation (or deflation, as appropriate) using the producer price 
indices published by the IMF.
    We made adjustments to account for freight costs between the 
suppliers and AJ Works' manufacturing facilities for each of the 
factors of production identified above. In accordance with our 
practice, for inputs for which we used CIF import values from India or 
Indonesia, 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 (Nov. 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).
    To value truck freight, we used price quotes obtained by the 
Department from Indian truck freight companies in November 1999, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' section above. 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 December 1, 2000, submission, because this company is a producer 
of subject merchandise.
    The petitioner also submitted the financial statements of National 
Peroxide Limited (National Peroxide), a producer of hydrogen 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 argues, as it 
did in previous segments of this proceeding, that because Calibre 
produces non-subject merchandise in addition to subject merchandise, 
its financial data are not representative of persulfates production. 
However, as we stated in previous segments of this proceeding, 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 financial statements for these values. 
See Persulfates From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Review, 64 FR 69494, 69499-500 (Dec. 13, 1999); Persulfates 
Second Review Preliminary Results, 65 FR at 18967, followed in 
Persulfates Second Review Final.
    Consistent with our methodology used in Persulfates Second Review 
Final, 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 Factors Memorandum at pages 7-9. We also 
reclassified certain depreciation expenses from Calibre's financial 
statements as SG&A expenses. We removed from the profit calculation the 
excise duties and sales taxes.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
period July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Ai Jian Import & Export Corporation...............         0.00
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................       119.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the 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 case briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will publish 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 or at a hearing, within 120 
days of the publication of these preliminary results.
    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 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) for a company previously found to be 
entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent 
review of that company; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC 
exporters, including Wuxi, will be 119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate 
established in the LTFV investigation; and (4) the cash deposit rate 
for a non-PRC exporter 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

[[Page 18444]]

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 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. Effective January 20, 
2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration.

    Dated: April 2, 2001.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-8660 Filed 4-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P